Sestak confirms WH job offer to get out of Senate race

[rattsass]

Anyone defending Obama and his mob in all of this needs to take a long look in the mirror.

 

Our president (allegedly) TAMPERED with an election.

 

While this may be "business as usual" to Dr. Sac and others that accpet our corrupt political system as it stands, we don't usually have the bribed party admitting to anyone that will listen that he was bribed. That is the rub here.

 

Sestack is either going to have to recant his story which was repeated numerous times (thus rendering him politically DOA) or the administration is going to have a whole heap of trouble on their hands.

 

If I were Mr. Sestack I would be very wary of any drinks, food, small aircrafts, or being caught in any sniper friendly environments.

[Square]

True but Obama pledged Hope and Change.

Yep. We should have all voted for that politician that we knew would never lie or cheat.

[Azazello1313]

on the one hand, you do seem to hear talk of this kind of thing fairly often, particularly during primary season (i.e., maybe mccain will offer romney the VP slot to get out of the race now, etc.) for all the talk, those things never seem to materialize, though. and I guess the laws wouldn't apply to someone who's not in office. I think there's also a difference, at least intuitively, between dealing in promises with respect to your own candidacy and your own administration, and making those kinds of promises to try to control other races in other branches of government which are really none of your business. but still, on the surface, it seems pretty lame and smarmy and....well, typical...but it doesn't seem like some sort of impeachable offense, by any means.

 

on the other hand, it appears to be blatantly illegal, and if you think about it you can actually really understand why. the laundry list of ethics rules ANY federal employee has to comply with is exhaustive. and as annoying as it can be to comply with, you are absolutely obligated to do so.

 

I dunno, but either way I think it is pretty clear everyone involved is going to have to level with the american people about exactly what went down.

[evil_gop_liars]

Were is Scooter Libby when you need him...

[Azazello1313]

Were is Scooter Libby when you need him...

 

he's in jail isn't he? maybe warming up a spot in the shower for rahm-beau.

[darin3]

Say what?

[Big John]

Say what?

Linky no worky, but the link suggests what was in starting in post #2.

[Azazello1313]

The White House is spinning a narrative that a conversation or conversations took place (because the fact of a conversation cannot be denied), but that there was a misunderstanding on the part of Sestak. Admit what cannot be denied, and muddle the rest based on imperfect memories and the frailty of human perception.

 

The story will go something like this: There may have been discussion of a "job," but it was only about what types of jobs might be appropriate for someone with Sestak's background; there never was an "offer" or "promise" of a specific "job."

 

The contortion necessary to paint Sestak as confused, but not a liar (which would be bad for the general election) explains why it is taking the White House so long to identify the person who didn't make the job offer and what was said that didn't constitute a job offer but might have been misunderstood as such by Sestak.

 

I was taught, and teach my students, that people who tell the truth don't need to remember which story to tell. Someone at the White House is trying to remember which story to tell.

 

And remembering which story to tell is all the more difficult here because of the possible criminal nature of the job offer. Politically, a huge mea culpa combined with a resignation might be enough. Legally, public contrition would be dangerous.

 

We appear to be heading towards a defense of "it depends upon what the meaning of 'job offer' is."

[i_am_the_swammi]

ugly

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

he's in jail isn't he? maybe warming up a spot in the shower for rahm-beau.

Sentence commuted by Bush. Though Libby's conviction remains on his record, and he still has to pay a fine, Libby never served a day in prison.

 

I think Az's analysis of the situation is pretty good.

One quick question, is there in fact a vacancy that needs to be filled for the job that Sestak was being offered, or was it the promise of a future job that was not yet vacant. The latter would trouble me significantly, the former not so much.

[rattsass]

Typical. They call slick willie to the white House on thursday to get their lies all lined up, and then announce "the official story" right before a holiday weekend so Joe Public won't find out what happened. Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous lie (who wouldn't trade a senate seat for a spot on an advisory panel) and good luck with sweeping this thing under the rug. Here is a clue - bringing Clinton in doesn't exactly reassure us that this was all above board. For those that missed any of this story I have a montage on youtube.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1guqdn8RfA

[tosberg34]

Typical. They call slick willie to the white House on thursday to get their lies all lined up, and then announce "the official story" right before a holiday weekend so Joe Public won't find out what happened. Yeah, good luck with that ridiculous lie (who wouldn't trade a senate seat for a spot on an advisory panel) and good luck with sweeping this thing under the rug. Here is a clue - bringing Clinton in doesn't exactly reassure us that this was all above board. For those that missed any of this story I have a montage on youtube.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1guqdn8RfA

 

Wait...so let me get this straight...The WH looked into and the resulting WH investigation determined that the WH did nothing wrong and we should take the WH word for it?

 

Oh, that's cool. For a minute thereI thought there might be a real problem. Glad the WH was able to clear it up for us.

 

Now that's transparency you can count on!

[darin3]

Linky no worky, but the link suggests what was in starting in post #2.

Say what, again?

[evil_gop_liars]

Say what, again?

How about this one.

[darin3]

How about this one.

Awesome.

[Perchoutofwater]

An uncanny resemblance. Edited June 2, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[driveby]

Romanoff Cracks: Secret White House Jobsgate E-Mail Revealed

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.3.10 @ 6:09AM

 

And…bang!

 

Can you say James McCord?

 

In a revelation that will send shock waves through the American political landscape, the Denver Post last night revealed that Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff has now reluctantly admitted he discussed "three possible jobs with the deputy chief of staff of the Obama administration -- all contingent upon a decision by Romanoff not to challenge U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet."

 

The White House Deputy Chief of Staff is Jim Messina, a Denver-born Obama aide who served as the chief of staff of the Obama presidential campaign. Messina serves under Rahm Emanuel, the former Illinois Congressman and current White House Chief of Staff.

 

The Post also published an e-mail from Messina to Romanoff dated September 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm. The e-mail discusses the jobs of Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean, and Director, Office of Democracy and Governance. Both of those positions are under the United States Agency for International Development. The third position mentioned was Director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

 

The Romanoff admission -- which comes after months of silence, denials and evasions by the White House beginning in February -- comes on the heels of a letter to the White House from Congressman Darrell Issa and two congressional colleagues demanding access to e-mails and phone logs relevant to the Sestak Jobsgate affair -- the allegation first made by Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak that the White House offered him a job if he would abandon his own Senate challenge to incumbent Democrat Arlen Specter.

 

On Friday, the White House issued a report by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, saying that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had approached former President Bill Clinton to contact Sestak. The report, which contradicts Sestak, says that "efforts" in the plural were "made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated."

 

The positions discussed in the Messina-Romanoff e-mail are all compensated positions.

 

Sestak says something else -- that former President Clinton made one phone call to him, the offer was only briefly discussed and he, Sestak, rejected the offer.

 

The report was sufficiently self-contradictory that Issa and colleagues Lamar Smith of Texas and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin felt compelled to send their letter to White House Counsel Bauer requesting -- by June 9 -- the following:

 

1. All records and documents created by or produced to the Office of the White House Counsel in the course of the investigation.

 

2. All records and documents created or produced to the Office of the White House Press Secretary in the course of the investigation of the Sestak matter.

 

3. All notes or transcripts of interviews conducted by lawyers in the Office of the White House Counsel with witnesses in the Sestak matter, including but not limited to the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, President Bill Clinton, Rep. Joe Sestak and Richard Sestak.

 

4. All notes or transcripts of interviews conducted by staff in the Office of the White House Press Secretary with witnesses in the Sestak matter, including but not limited to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, President Bill Clinton, Rep. Joe Sestak and Richard Sestak.

 

5. All records, documents, interview notes or transcripts referred to either explicitly or implicitly or otherwise relied on to draft the May 28, 2010 Sestak Memorandum.

 

6. All documents, e-mails and phone records related to conversations White House staff had with or about Rep. Joe Sestak and any members of Rep. Sestak's campaign.

 

The revelation of the once-secret Messina-Romanoff correspondence will only heighten the pressure on the White House to comply with the Issa letter.

 

The break in the Sestak Jobsgate Affair is reminiscent of a similar revelation by Watergate burglar and ex-CIA agent James McCord. After he was caught with four accomplices breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel complex on June 17, 1972, it quickly developed that the five men had a connection to the Nixon Committee to Re-elect the President. Yet there was no proof that higher-ups in the Nixon White House knew anything about the break-in or any subsequent efforts to cover up a connection. Convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping, McCord then wrote a letter to Judge John J. Sirica saying that the reason for his non-cooperation during his trial was that he had been pressured by the White House to keep quiet.

 

McCord's famous letter, which instantly helped break open the Watergate investigation, would eventually force President Nixon's resignation and send his closest and most powerful aides, including White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, to prison.

 

The McCord letter said:

 

TO: JUDGE SIRICA March 19, 1973

 

Certain questions have been posed to me from your honor through the probation officer, dealing with details of the case, motivations, intent and mitigating circumstances.

 

In endeavoring to respond to these questions, I am whipsawed in a variety of legalities.

 

First, I may be called before a Senate Committee investigating this matter. Secondly, I may be involved in a civil suit, and thirdly there may be a new trial at some future date. Fourthly, the probation officer may be called before the Senate Committee to present testimony regarding what may otherwise be a privileged communication between defendant and Judge, as I understand it; if I answered certain questions to the probation officer, it is possible such answers could become a matter of record in the Senate and there-fore available for use in the other proceedings just described. My answers would, it would seem to me, to violate my fifth amendment rights, and possibly my 6th amendment right to counsel and possibly other rights.

 

On the other hand, to fail to answer your questions may appear to be non-cooperation, and I can therefore expect a much more severe sentence.

 

There are further considerations which are not to be lightly taken. Several members of my family have expressed fear for my life if I disclose knowledge of the facts in this matter, either publicly or to any government representative. Whereas I do not share their concerns to the same degree, nevertheless, I do believe that retaliatory measures will be taken against me, my family, and my friends should I disclose such facts. Such retaliation could destroy careers, income, and reputations of persons who are innocent of any guilt whatever.

 

Be that as it may, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of restoring faith in the criminal justice system, which faith has been severely damaged in this case, I will state the following to you at this time which I hope may be of help to you in meting out justice in this case:

 

1. There was political pressure applied to the defendants to plead guilty and remain silent.

 

2. Perjury occurred during the trial in matters highly material to the very structure, orientation, and impact of the government's case, and to the motivation and intent of the defendants.

 

3. Others involved in the Watergate operation were not identified during the trial, when they could have been by those testifying.

 

4. The Watergate operation was not a CIA operation. The Cubans may have been misled by others into believing that it was a CIA operation. I know for a fact that it was not.

 

5. Some statements were unfortunately made by a witness which left the Court with the impression that he was stating untruths, or withholding facts of his knowledge, when in fact only honest errors of memory were involved.

 

6. My motivations were different than those of the others involved, but were not limited to, or simply those offered in my defense during the trial. This is no fault of my attorneys, but of the circumstances under which we had to prepare my defense.

 

Following sentence, I would appreciate the opportunity to talk with you privately in chambers. Since I cannot feel confident in talking with an FBI agent, in testifying before a Grand Jury whose U.S. Attorneys work for the Department of Justice, or in talking with other government representatives, such a discussion with you would be of assistance to me.

 

I have not discussed the above with my attorneys as a matter of protection for them.

 

I give this statement freely and voluntarily, fully realizing that I may be prosecuted for giving a false statement to a Judicial Official, if the statements herein are knowingly untrue. The statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

[signed] James W. McCord, Jr.

 

The letter, as with the Romanoff revelation of a secret White House e-mail, was a bombshell.

 

Aside from revealing the secret-role of the White House, it also made plain McCord's lack of trust in "talking with an FBI agent" -- because the Justice department was run by the Nixon-appointed Attorney General Richard Kleindienst -- the Eric Holder of his day. Holder, eager to investigate potential wrongdoing by BP in the Gulf oil spill disaster, has shown a noticeable reluctance to investigate the White House for suspected criminal wrongdoing.

 

The Romanoff side of the Sestak Jobsgate Affair has gotten relatively little coverage until recently. It has been hammered almost daily in Denver by KHOW radio talker Peter Boyles and, at the national level, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Hannity has also investigated the issue on his popular television show, discussing the Romanoff angle frequently.

 

Here in this space, calls -- unreturned -- were placed in the last several days directly to Mr. Romanoff, who refused to return them. Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin was told by a Romanoff aide as recently as the weekend that Romanoff, in Littwin's words, "won't answer why he won't answer."

 

The reason for Romanoff's Code of Omerta is now abundantly clear.

 

On the other end of his e-mail was the White House Deputy Chief of Staff -- Rahm Emanuel's trusted number two -- and who knew beyond that?

 

Like the intimidated James McCord of Watergate, Andrew Romanoff of the Sestak Jobsgate Affair couldn't bring himself to speak up.

 

Then he did.

 

Now, somebody in this Obama White House is in big trouble.

 

Big trouble.

 

And the old Watergate question is about to re-surface:

 

What did the President know -- and when did he know it?

 

Paging Bill Clinton

[SEC=UGA]

Well, at least they're being transparent by letting all of this come out.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

On Friday, the White House issued a report by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, saying that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had approached former President Bill Clinton to contact Sestak. The report, which contradicts Sestak, says that "efforts" in the plural were "made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated."

How does this report 'contradict' Sestak's claim?

As we discussed earlier, there are some semantical issues involved here, but the WH clearly is saying that Yes, they offered the guy a job for which he was qualified, and CONVENIENTLY it got him out of the race. That is their open admission. The only disagreement here with Issa is that if the job was offered strictly and tacitly in exchange for getting out of the race, I guess it is illegal. Issa and his crew are clearly now witch hunting. They know damn well exactly what happened but are now going to request access to pretty much any papers issues by the WH to try to dredge up dirt.

Fair politics. But if that is not grandstanding, I don't know what is.

[driveby]

How does this report 'contradict' Sestak's claim?

As we discussed earlier, there are some semantical issues involved here, but the WH clearly is saying that Yes, they offered the guy a job for which he was qualified, and CONVENIENTLY it got him out of the race. That is their open admission. The only disagreement here with Issa is that if the job was offered strictly and tacitly in exchange for getting out of the race, I guess it is illegal. Issa and his crew are clearly now witch hunting. They know damn well exactly what happened but are now going to request access to pretty much any papers issues by the WH to try to dredge up dirt.

Fair politics. But if that is not grandstanding, I don't know what is.

denial isn't just a river in Africa.

[evil_gop_liars]

Good thing nothing like this has happened before.

Ed Rollins, Reagan's incoming political director. ..."If the senator chooses, on his own initiative, not to run for re-election, I'm sure the president would be willing to offer him a substantial administration post."

 

Oh no, not Saint Reagan.

[driveby]

Good thing nothing like this has happened before.

 

 

Oh no, not Saint Reagan.

Not saying it doesn't happen.

 

But you have to attribute these clumsy bribes as either ineptness or arrogance on the part of the once omnipotent fearless leader.

[bpwallace49]

Not saying it doesn't happen.

 

But you have to attribute these clumsy bribes as either ineptness or arrogance on the part of the once omnipotent fearless leader.

 

Is this another "Obama is a superhero" comment and that he does all the dirty work himself?

 

I think it is all about Rahm . . and he very well may have to resign/be fired for this crap. Every admin needs a fall guy

[Savage Beatings]

I'm sure the DOJ will once again simply choose not to appoint an independent investigator and then decide that nothing criminal or unethical has occured.

[TimC]

Oh no, not Saint Reagan.

 

That's SuperSaint Reagan, thank you very much.