Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Time for Sestak to clean up his mess

Senate Republicans are now calling for a special prosecutor to look into Joe Sestak's claim that the White House offered him a job in order to drop his primary challenge to Arlen Specter. On the merits, this seems silly: Good government experts say that what Sestak claims took place doesn't seem like a big deal.

But that doesn't change the fact that Sestak has played this too cute by half, and he needs to clean up this mess. He needs to clarify what exactly happened -- even if it's thoroughly uncontroversial. For his own good and for the sake of the Democratic Party.

Republicans have been hammering away at this for days now, and won't let up. Sestak's defenders are pushing back by arguing that the GOP charges are pure hypocrisy, that the same type of thing happened under Republican administrations.

But so what? Even if that's true, of course Republicans are going to make an issue of this. They're the opposition party, remember? As Chris Cillizza notes, Republicans are using it to undercut a key aspect of the Obama presidency: His promise to restore transparency and undo the legacy of cronyism of the Bush years. Republicans aren't going to stop doing this, potentially damaging Dems over the long term.

If it's true that nothing untoward happened, which I believe, Sestak could fix this situation quickly by detailing his original claim. Should the White House also offer an account? It's true that the White House has acknowledged vaguely that there were conversations of a sort. But the White House isn't even acknowledging the core of Sestak's assertion.

The primary burden rests on Sestak to clarify what happened -- because he made the claim in the first place.

Though people forget this now, Sestak made the assertion back when it was helpful to him to do so, in February, when his primary challenge was fresh and he was positioning himself as an outsider heroically bucking the Dem establishment.

The Sestak camp will argue that all he did was answer affirmatively when asked whether he'd been offered a job to drop the primary challenge. But he got this ball rolling. He's declined to answer questions since. And this story has now taken on a life of its own. The larger political context isn't going away.

Even if the truth isn't remotely controversial, the onus is on him to fix this by explaining what happened. Saying nothing is worse for him, as well as Dems in general.

By Greg Sargent  |  May 26, 2010; 3:30 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Joe Sestak , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Another right-wing attack on Kagan is a bust
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

@Greg: "If it's true that nothing untoward happened, which I believe."

Why do you believe that nothing untoward happened?

Posted by: sbj3 | May 26, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Expect a Friday evening dump this weekend which is a Holiday 3 day weekend.

Posted by: maritza1 | May 26, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

sbj -- the read of the good government types seems right to me, given what we know

and good call maritza

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 26, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are desperately trying to make this molehill into a mountain. The Whitehouse and Sestak should continue to ignore them. There are other, more pressing issues to worry about, without having to spend time with this silliness.

Posted by: vortex100 | May 26, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: I'm not arguing that a law has been broken. You seem to be saying that nothing troublesome has happened - "given what we know" - ... when we don't know what happened! I would think that as a journalist covering the admin you'd be a bit more skeptical?

Sayeth the WaPo: "The White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of U.S. attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promised?"

Posted by: sbj3 | May 26, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

This is a classic GOP hissy fit, distinguished only by the triviality of the putative offense. Really, I'd like to see 'em hold their breath til they turn blue on this one.
I fear your signing on with the WP has made you susceptible to "Village media syndrome," characterized by a tendency to run barking after whatever shiny object the Goopers have chosen to hurl.

Posted by: joeff | May 26, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

joeff, I thought I made it clear that I didn't think much of the GOP attack. I said it a number of times.

Even if we dismiss the GOP attack, however, we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by the reality that as long as this remains unclarified, it's bad for Sestak and for Dems in general. He needs to fix this. Period.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 26, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

OT but worth paying attention to...

Norquist and Brewer (Arizona) getting into a fight... http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/grover-norquist-jan-brewer

I doubt this is merely a tax issue (Norquist's Big Thing) but also reflects his understanding of the growing problem for Republican candidates as off-message "we hates dem non-anglos" statements and policies gain greatger prominence on the right.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 26, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Greg. Sestak needs to mop up his mess.

I think he's having a hard time doing that because he overstated the "offer." I'm kinda confident that there was some kind of general conversation, but I really don't think that Navy Secy was offered. Ray Mabus was already in the pipeline on his way to Senate confirmation before Specter switched parties, and Sestak decided to challenge him in a primary.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 26, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

We know Obama is a liar, that's what gives this legs. No mandate for HCR. I'll close Gitmo. Wireless wire tapping. Clean coal. Won't raise taxes on people who make under $250K (he left out the taxing health insurance in that one) We're doing all we can on the oil spill.

Posted by: obrier2 | May 26, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Sestak had to know that if he won the nomination that the Republicans would pursue this aggressively.

I don't think the White House should throw Sestak a life jacket. Sestak purposely created this whirlpool, now let him swim out of it.

You would think an admiral would know how to keep a conversation confidant.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

This author intellectually dishonest in trying to re-frame the argument to make it look like Sestak is the one with the problem.

Sestak is not the one who committed multiple felonies.

The felons are in the White House.

This is going to explode and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Sestak's back is in the corner, to be certain. He has, on more than one occasion made this accusation, and in unequivocal terms. He can't now say that he was "misunderstood." Doing so would totally sink his Senate bid and he knows it.

Watch Sestakgate! It's on the way!

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 26, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse


Did Greg Sargean come cheap to the WaPo?

Because whatthey got in this new "columnist" is a smart alec idiot.

There is, he posits, nothing at all wrong with offering Sestak a job
(he'd have had to withdraw from the senate race to accept)

...nothing wrong, but the republicans are yelling, so Sestak must give details.

What? Clean up the mess, this Palin brained columnist says. What mess? It'd mean another day or two on the story.

Which Seargane notes upfront is a non story.
But he persists. Stupid. As is most of his work to date. He's a loser.


Posted by: whistling | May 26, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

so what's the differnce between the Republicans today calling for an investingation and Sen Durbin (D-Ill) and Rep. Weiner (D-NY) calling for an investigation in the past few days? Are Durbin and Weiner playing politics? The White House is allowing this issue to undercut their transparency promise because they are avoiding the issue even though the mainstream media has been asking about it for weeks. Greg's piece seems short on all the facts and long on opinion.

Posted by: phil413 | May 26, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever said: You would think an admiral would know how to keep a conversation confidant.
################

Right! That is, cover up a crime.

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 26, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I always get a chuckle when lefties consign any little pickle the Democrats find themselves in to "those rascally Republicans". This is all nothing! Just a simple matter of a bribe being allegedly offered for a political favor. How could anyone object to that? I mean as long as it's Democrats we're talkign about. If it was Republicans you'd be running around trying to hang it all on Dick Cheney and of course the all purpose boogeyman - Halliburton.

Do you ever stop tho and ask yourself about the types of things you minimize for Democrats? Things like alleged bribery and getting sexual favors from employees in the oval office and lying about it? Just a tempest in a teapot, silly Republicans!

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Good government experts say that what Sestak claims took place doesn't seem like a big deal." Uh, that's nice, but I don't care what self-appointed "experts" say, thank you very much. I'll take what the law says in such cases.

Section 600 statute states: "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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Obama promised us transparency and an end to "business as usual," so please don't tell us it's "business as usual" and say that makes it all right. Forgive me if I don't buy the word of unnamed "experts" and unnamed "White House lawyers" over a Navy Admiral and Democrat candidate for Senate who says he was offered a bribe.

Posted by: chicoandtheman2001 | May 26, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Republicans calling for a special prosecutor? Sounds like old times.

Sbj3 brings up hypocrisy?

How many special prosecutors did the Republicans call for while Cheney and Bush were wiping their rear ends with the Constitution for 8 years?

I've got plenty of complaints of my own about the Obama Administration. I think they're overly solicitious of large corporations. They should have brought those who approved of torture as American policy to justice. Clearly, the ability to drill in deep water is not match by the ability to do it safely, given the enormous risk involved.

However, on every single one of these issues the Republicans are without a leg to stand on...including offering jobs to potential candidates for office.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201005260026

P.S. Scott Harper, re: Guantánamo, Operation Evil Airlift, and yet more Republican hypocrisy.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007114
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | May 26, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the first order of business for new Speaker of the House Boehner in January will be to convene a special panel to begin IMPEACHMENT hearing for the high crimes and misdemeanors of hussein in relation the the sestak job offer and other offenses.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | May 26, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Holy cow did www.wearecompleteidiots.com link to this blog or something?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 26, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Sestak " THE MAN COMING TO DC TO SERVE THE PEOPLE NOT HIMSELF" why don't you start by telling the PEOPLE what happened and who exactly offereed you a job not to run against the turncoat Specter?

Funny bribing people not to run against people for political office is really nothing to worry about. Unless it's done by a republican! Obama is already proven to be a fraud and unfortunately Sestak has come out of the gate looking like the same thing.

Posted by: jdb70 | May 26, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Good government experts say that what Sestak claims took place doesn't seem like a big deal." Excuse me but who are these experts? The law as stated by chicoandtheman2001 is quite accurate.

Someone is lying .... who is it?

Posted by: 912projectbuffalo | May 26, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Like I mentioned a few days ago. Republicans smell blood. They aren't going to drop this.

Expect cries of impeachment soon. If they can't defeat him legislatively, they'll drag him down in the courts and make this country ungovernable for the remainder of his term.

If I were the DOJ, and now see that Republicans are out for partisan witch hunts, I'd let the WH know the flood gates are open on investigations into Bush/Cheney war crimes against humanity and push to have them all incarcerated for breaking numerous American and International laws.

They wanna play games? OK. Lets play games then.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I didn't steal the cookies mummy... honestly I didn't.... why don't you believe me?

Is this the rationale that Mr Sargent is using here? Is the man totally naive?

Or has he another agenda?

Either way, 'tis a poor performance from someone writing in such a serious publication.

Poor show indeed !!!!!

Posted by: DeLyonGetty | May 26, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- looks like a Drudge link.

I'll have the Happy Hour roundup as fast as I can so we can get back to normal

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you are a lefty hack and a nitwit.

"If it's true that nothing untoward happened, which I believe...".

We KNOW something ontoward happened. We're talking Obama here, and Rahmbo Emmanuel, and their digusting, corrupt Chicago-style politics.

Like it or not, if this is substantiated, it is a criminal offense, and if Obama is connected to it, it is a high-crime and impeachable offense.

It's no wonder the left media is burying this. Just like the global warming email scandal. This time, their affirmative action, anti-American poster child has really stepped in it.

So, come on Sestak...produce the secretly recorded tapes and send this Obama-nation to prison, where he belongs.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | May 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

So Greg I see that you are a Wahington insider that believes we common folk are too stupid to understand that breaking the law by politicians is not the same as breaking the law by rubes in the rest of the country. How sad it is that we have sunk so low that crinimal acts are now ok because the end justifies the means. The sad thing is that if this was a republican you and the Dems would be going crazy, calling for a special investagation and that heads should roll. The terrible truth is that both parties are so full of scum it is impossible for the public to get a fair deal. I wonder what other laws you dont mind politicians breaking.

Posted by: mrpoparue | May 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Sbj3 brings up hypocrisy?"

You'll find that pointing out liberal hypocrisy is a favorite hobby-horse of mine.

Posted by: sbj3 | May 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Holder needs to open investigations now into war crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney WH if Republicans truly want to push forward with this line of attack.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 26, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Why is everything Democrat vs Republican? This candidate has made a criminal allegation against members of the White House. HE MUST COME CLEAN AND PROVIDE THE DETAILS or be prosecuted for falsly reporting criminal activity. He started this and can blame no one else. This CRIMINAL allegation also needs to be investigated. That is what is wrong with Washington, no one will investigate and prosecute criminal activity under the guise of politics.

Posted by: clipyank | May 26, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

@ifthethunder - You did not just quote MediaMatters as a source...? Tell me you didn't. The people who "find" CONSERVATIVE bias in the media?

And btw "Operation Evil Airlift" even sounds like something a child would dream up.

Those Rascally Republicans.

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Republicans believe if they say the words "special prosecutor" that all Democrats shake in their boots.
If Republicans want to pursue this, the Democratic party can provide examples of jobs offered by Republican presidents in the same manner.
This gets the overzealous teaparty cult all excited, but the majority (and rationale) in this nation know this is just more hypocrisy by the Republicans party.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHA! OT, this is AWESOME. Ya know the GOP's Americaspeaksout website or whatever. Such a joke.

Well, THIS from kos:

Democrats put up their own response: americaspokeout.com

Seriously. Check it out. Awesome.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 26, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

U.S. Code 18, Sections 210, 211, 595, and 600 regarding the bribery of a public official were clearly violated. For example, Section 595 says someone who “uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under the title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Posted by: maliknidal | May 26, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

sorry Mike, I guess most of us haven't drunk the kool aid yet. Odd how liberals whine about "crimes against humanity" yet we still have Guantanamo open, we've increased drones into Pakistan which continue to kill civilians and the Obama Administration supports Bush's use of wire tapping.

Posted by: phil413 | May 26, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Intersting how this thread caught attention as it did.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

18 USC 600 --- 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.

Posted by: maliknidal | May 26, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"The sad thing is that if this was a republican you and the Dems would be going crazy, calling for a special investagation and that heads should roll."

"November 25, 1981: Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job."

P.S. For those screeching "what legal experts???" and are apparently too feeble to click anything besides Drudge, from my MMfA link above:
------------------------
In a post on the Legal Ethics Forum blog, former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter wrote: "The allegation that the job offer was somehow a 'bribe' in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support."
--------------------------
(Yes Jay, that is a quote from MMfA, quoting Richard Painter. Are you saying that MMfA didn't quote him correctly? Now you could say correctly that "chief ethics lawyer for the Bush Administration" is hardly a claim to fame. But then you concede my point that Republicans don't have a leg to stand on.)
~


Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | May 26, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Re: "mikeFromArlington..Holder needs to open investigations now into war crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney WH if Republicans truly want to push forward with this line of attack"

----------------------------------------

Mike, have you not seen the polling numbers lately? Doing what you suggest would only further alienate the public against the Democrats. Do you really think the public believes Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes? If you do, you are a fringe lefty. The public instead sees threats to investigate Bush and Cheney as an attempt to divert attention from the economic damage Obama is causing.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | May 26, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Orly Taitz, GOP candidate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/orly_taitz_the_candidate.html#comments

Posted by: bernielatham | May 26, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to chicoandtheman2001, we have the law to read, and it says that what was done was illegal. Liberals and progressives get so *itchy when presented with facts. If they could only get rid of them, then everyone could just get along, kumbaya style. Perhaps his majestic countenance should issue an edict, or appoint a czar making all existing laws illegal, and then we could move on to finishing the job of making the national debt service 200% of the GDP.

Posted by: bluestateblue | May 26, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

If you “progressives” think you have some charges to bring against your opposition, then bring them on!!! Otherwise, SHUT UP!

Like it or not, Sestak has already stated UNEQUIVOCALLY on more than one occasion that felonies were committed and the origin of these felons is the White House. Sestak’s back is against the wall. He can’t deny his statements and now the game is on.

Good luck trying to convince voters that this is much ado about nothing!

That’s right! Let the games begin...

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 26, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Do these Drudge nuts really believe it's against the law for a political party to bargain with their party's candidates?

No wonder it's so easy for the Republicans to manipulate these bloodthirsty nitwits. They keep the gas on hand to light their witchhunting torches.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Sargent is SO WORRIED about the Democrat party! What about the USA, sir?
Obama is the most secretive, paranoid, thin-skinned president since Nixon.
He's a chicago thug. Grow up, Greg! Time to understand that Obama is a Tsunami against the Democrat party and will bring it crashing down any day now.

Posted by: panastos | May 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"If it's true that nothing untoward happened, which I believe..."

Greg, why do you believe that?

Here's what we know: Sestak says the White House offered him a job in return for not running for the Senate. That is illegal.

The White House acknowledges the conversation took place. They further acknowledge that White House counsel looked into the matter.

Then the stonewalling begins. Both sides have clammed up, refusing to say what job was offered or who offered it.

The Democratic talking points are that this is just business as usual.

But -- it's illegal. It's against the law. What both sides have acknowledged is ILLEGAL. So how can you believe "nothing untoward" happened? They said it happened. Now they're hiding under rocks.

Most likely they'll release some info over the holiday weekend in the hopes everyone forgets. But even a liberal dupe like you shouldn't lie in print.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | May 26, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Now that Greg Gibbs er I mean Greg Sargent has decided that his "Master" Barry's administration is innocent despite the accusation of a member of his own party it's not surprising that Robert Gibbs Oops I did it again, I mean Barry's lapdog Greg has decided to lay this in Sestak's door. Reporting for the Washington Compost sure isn't what it used to be. Truth be told which it never will be with this hack the majority of the Compost's reporters really could care less if a crime was committed, after all anything Barry does is for the good of all.

Posted by: fe59 | May 26, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

@phil413 - Here here.

I say "bring it on" just to steal a phrase MikeInArlington. Let's get all those "war crimes" put in front of a court. I've had to listen to lefties throw out the old "war crimes" and/or "hundreds - no thousands - maybe millions of crimes!" lines so many times I think it's one word. BushWarCrimes, CheneyDemonEater, BushMurderDeathKill, blah blah blah.

So far the left is O-fer on making any of that stick. But you keep right on saying it. Even after (as my coleague phil so astutely points out) Obama has so far just doubled down on all the "illegal" policies of the BushWarBabyEaterCabal.

How's that Guantanamo working out for ya?

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

It would be naive to think nothing was offered as the WH was doing anything it could to help Specter since his changing sides. This is Washington DC people.

Why would Sestak make it up and then shut up? Because at the time he didn't know is was a criminal offense to offer a job for political favor.

Posted by: cmich06 | May 26, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Time for Republicans to clean out the White House by impeaching and removing the president and his entire staff.

Should be done by Chrismas.

What a present that would be!

Posted by: viejo1 | May 26, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever if the statute is applied to the pubicly known facts then a crime has been committed. Axelrod himself acknowledged that. Two Democratic congressmen have called on the White House to address it. White House attys have allegedly conducted an investigation and found no wrongdoing, however it's hard to consider them independant. If possible they should release their findings.

By the way, who was easily manipulated by voting for a candidate who's never held a job and passed any significant legislation in their political career? How's that working out so far? What will the 2012 slogan be? "No We Couldn't...but It was Because of Bush"?

Posted by: phil413 | May 26, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

And how exactly is it illegal?

One thing you can be sure, Obama did not risk his presidency by doing something illegal for Specter. And he and his lawyers would obviously have a lot clearer idea than you nitwits on what constitutes an illegal or impeachable act.

At the very most, it might be leaning toward unethical, but it's been practiced since George Washington was president.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately for the Progressive-hijacked Democrat party, perception is reality. The People perceive that Obama is an underhanded, Chicago-style thug. Almost 2/3 of Americans polled already want Health Care Reform repealed, and Obama's job approval numbers are sinking faster than the Titanic. He has been like Godzilla meets wrecking ball with his "transformative" economics that have devastated private pay while exploding government growth. While most of the country agrees with them, Obama attacks Arizona for mimicking an unenforced Federal law so they can protect themselves from an illegal invasion.

Obama has no coat tail come November. In fact, Obama is like a certain incurable STD that will keep on giving...defeat after defeat after defeat to Democrats who don't start to distance themselves.

One and done for this SOB.

Posted by: libertyfirst1776 | May 26, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"Drudge Nuts"? You mean like the ones who got BJ Clinton impeached?

November will be just like '94, and Obama's bluff will be called.

Posted by: viejo1 | May 26, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Leftist Melonie Sloan said: "Something of value had to be offered in this case it was only a job so nothing of value was offered"

Heh, Lefties. The next time some woman claims sexual harrassment because her job was threatened I am sure the defense will use the Melonie Sloan argument.

Hey what's valuable about a job anyway?

Do morons like Sloan realize that for most people a job is the most valuable thing they can get?

Posted by: robtr | May 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

What a novel way to phrase this - Sestak is offered a bribe but it's up to him to clean it up. That's what a special prosecutor is for!

Posted by: 0460 | May 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

He, he, he! We see Greg Sargent showing us he is just another Democrat media hack, wanting to believe that "nothing untoward happened" and demanding that Sestak clear things up. If "nothing untoward happened", would Propaganda Minister Robert Gibbs dissemble until he could no more and wouldn't the White have cleared this up weeks ago? Impeachment, baby!

Posted by: mgoveia | May 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Yea, Lets not forget to define "it" and look for the missing 18 minutes of Nixon tapes. Presidents will say and do just about anything to stay out of the boiling water and be the first one to push anyone standing around in without blinking an eye to save their own behind. It does not mean the republicans are right it just means we may never get the truth out of the democrats in this Sestak-gate. Although I would like to know who is the lier. The White House or Sestak. The birth certificate and Sestak-Gate is kinda like the old Tootsie Pop commercial "The World May Never Know".

Posted by: denise13 | May 26, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

He, he, he! We see Greg Sargent showing us he is just another Democrat media hack, wanting to believe that "nothing untoward happened" and demanding that Sestak clear things up. If "nothing untoward happened", would Propaganda Minister Robert Gibbs dissemble until he could no more and wouldn't the White House have cleared this up weeks ago?

Impeachment, baby!

Posted by: mgoveia | May 26, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@ifthunder-

Lol, I wouldn't trust anything MediaMatters said except "The following Message was paid for by George Soros".

They're a laughingstock come on.

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Sestak's defenders are pushing back by arguing that the GOP charges are pure hypocrisy, that the same type of thing happened under Republican administrations."

Yeah, the Nixon Administration. Look what happened to him?

Posted by: flynny | May 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

OMG, it's the invasion of the teahadis. YAWN!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 26, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

This rag is such a freaking joke!

Posted by: viejo1 | May 26, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

@ Greg Sargent:

Why not bring up the Dems who are seeking clarification -- Pen Gov. Ed Rendell, Ill Sen. Dick Durbin and NY Rep. Anthony Weiner? How many more Dems need to sign on before you label their inquiries as "opposition" or "hammering?"

Both Sestak and the WH acknowledge an offer was made -- Why wouldn't you demand any explanation from the WH? How odd!

Playing whistle blower is not a campaign strategy. Instead, Sestak is leaving it to those who made the offer to explain what it was - you know, the most transparent of administrations.

Posted by: Vivienne | May 26, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

beeliever, they allegedly offered him a job to drop out of the race. the statute is fairly cut and dry. I don't know when the statute was enacted but it was probably after Washington served. And seriously, this kind of action by politicians (of both parties) is what is driving the growing animosity toward Washington. Regarding Obama and his attys, you may be giving them more credit than they deserve.

Posted by: phil413 | May 26, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

You media types are funny creatures, thinking you still get to decide what is/isn't controversial. You no longer have a monopoly on information, and others are rushing in to fill your ideological void.

This was a blantant attempt by Obama to influence an election, and a clear violation of federal election law. It doesn't make it okay if "Bush did it too," infact it just further reinforces the thinskinned, hypocritic nature of the "most transparent administration in history."

When you enjoy media cover of this magnitude, there's no telling what you can get way with. Hope, Change... just words.

Posted by: jpmzo | May 26, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Rather heated crowd, this.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 26, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

If obama's white House offered him a job to not run against Arlen Specter, then impeachment proceedings should start. Let's see how honest the Democrats are or if they will ignore the constitution (again) to protect one of their own (Murtha, Rangel, etc.).

Posted by: Realist20 | May 26, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

@Believer: "And he and his lawyers would obviously have a lot clearer idea than you nitwits on what constitutes an illegal or impeachable act."

Lol, change the presidents from Obama to Bush and the alleged crimes from bribery to "war" and Believer just re-iterated my previous point :)

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama tries to fix an election by bribing an elected official with a high level federal position.

And the dems are trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.

The chickens are coming home to roost!

Posted by: Dnordgre | May 26, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Sargent,

Answer this question. If this involved George Bush and a republican would you "believe nothing untoward happened" or would you be asking "what did the president know and when did he know it."
I'll wager that it would be the latter.

Posted by: 2jeffreybert | May 26, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Since you asked, it's working out great for me. Unlike what Fox News, Drudge and Limbaugh tries to convince you, not everybody in this country agrees with the teabag cult's warped sense of reality.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

THE REPUBLICANS ARE BLOWING SMOKE!

Every Administration since George Washington has offered POLITICAL CANDIDATES positions in the government. There is NO law to preclude that.

Political behavior IS what this process is. If you don't want that, then change it, but don't let the Republicans play "holier than thou" given THEIR corrupt track records of: Gingrich illegally placing a coke-head on his Speaker's Office staff from the private sector; GW/Cheney's political maneuvers with WMD's via Karl Rove; Tom DeLay; the appointment of James WATT as Interior Secy (Watt never had a childhood!) who HATED natural resources of this nation; Nixon's Watergate WHITE HOUSE!! ALL REPUBLICANS.

Republicans need to keep their mouths shut when it comes to corruption. Just ask Souder; or the Governor of S.C.; or the RNC's use of donor's funds to go to simulated lesbian strip joints in Los Angeles!! So much for FAMILY VALUES!

If the GOP wants to RAISE the ante against Admiral Sestak, the GOP is playing with FIRE as there are a LOT of current and former Republicans MORE than willing and able to OUT a lot of criminals within the GOP on Capitol Hill!

Posted by: gglenc | May 26, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

So Sestak throws the Obamites under the bus to distance himself fron an unpopular president. Two dem pols respond demanding an investigation to charbroil Sestak while also trying to distance themself from the coming train wreck. The Repubs jump on the bandwagon and suddenly this is a right wing conspiracy? Gufaw!

Posted by: obamamamajamma | May 26, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

So Sestak throws the Obamites under the bus to distance himself from an unpopular president. Two dem pols respond demanding an investigation to charbroil Sestak while also trying to distance themself from the coming train wreck. The Repubs jump on the bandwagon and suddenly this is a right wing conspiracy? Gufaw!

Posted by: obamamamajamma | May 26, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

so disregard: 1) my taxes going up, 2)healthcare costs going up while my coverage goes down, 3) federal gov't spending increasing with no benefit to taxpayers and 4) all the polls showing Obama's popularity waning? I guess that begs the question: which federal department employs you?

Posted by: phil413 | May 26, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

bernie: "Rather heated crowd, this."

Yeah, and a little light in the gray matter, to boot.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 26, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Another reason the GOP NEEDS to use the Sestak shtick NOW.

Must-read:

*Rand Paul faces possible challenge, staff shake-up*

Despite his pedigree as the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, Libertarian Vice Chairman Joshua Koch said Rand Paul has betrayed the party's values with stands he's taken, and they were considering finding a candidate to run for the seat.

It was a startling development that could play a role in shaping the outcome of the race in November by siphoning votes from Paul to the benefit of his Democratic opponent, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway. The news came on the same day that Paul named Jesse Benton, one of his father's former aides, as his campaign manager.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052602334.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 26, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Why would the White House REALLLY want to help Specter? They used him and I don't think they bribed anyone. They probably talked about stuff, but really didn't offer anything. Like "Sestak, if you lose we might have a place for you." is a whole lot different than "Pull out so we can honor committment to Specter and we will give you a job." Specter was a DINO in a place where DEMS needed no more of them. I say there are probably tickled pink that Specter lost. Most of the rest is likely to be pure BS. If anyone got screwed here it was Specter.

Posted by: jacquie1 | May 26, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

And btw "Operation Evil Airlift" even sounds like something a child would dream up.And btw "Operation Evil Airlift" even sounds like something a child would dream up.

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 4:34 PM
=================================

Wow, jay17, you thoroughly debunked that one.

Good to know that Taliban and Al Qaeda personnel did not escape Kunduz and flee to Pakistan in November, 1981, after Dick Cheney ordered the bombardment of Kunduz to cease.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | May 26, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Sargent, interesting you comment on your comments section, like a cocktail party hostess.

Okay Blathersnipe, if this is not a crime then what's the score with Blagojevich? As a matter of fact it is the second time like accusations have come up about Oblah blah. Offering bribes!!! A distinctive crime that all foreign stationed corporate officials cannot engage in, in foreign jurisdictions under heavy penalty; the notion that this is an insignificant case is ludicrous! It is a matter of public trust. They are peddling and pimping station for political outcome!!! In order to prop up their defector Specter. The motives are clear, Sestak repeated the claims, and the charge has legs AS IT IS A FELONY. Like D. Morris or not he is a Mental heavy weight whomever he's served, you are not Mr. Sargent. Although I imagine you look cute in your cocktail dress.

Uhm finger sandwitches? nuts? goldfish? I mean since we are here...

Posted by: bubbahercules | May 26, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't claim it's a right-wing conspiracy. The Republicans aren't powerful enough to conspire anything of consequence.
I would just call it a rightwing nuance and another act of embarrassing desperation.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

Amen to that man. I'm with you that from what we know, this seems like a pretty small story - and it's flat out stupid for Sestak to not just come out, clear the air, and move on. There's several months between now and November, and voters won't care about stuff this deep in the weeds. This kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME in politics, and everyone knows it.

The only way this is a story is if Sestak completely made it up. If he flat out lied about the entire thing, then it has legs, because that opens him up to direct character/trust attacks. Even in that most extreme case...get it out there sooner rather than later. You don't do yourself any favors by avoiding the issues while the pot boils.

For now I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt - there's no evidence to believe otherwise. There's a dozen ways that situation could have unfolded, and 11 of them are simply mildly embarrassing for the parties involved. Only one is bad.

Let's move on already. Get the info out, then mock their pettiness if they keep harping on it.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | May 26, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I have heard three specific laws cited that were alledgedly broken. I am surprised that they are laws because they seem like "politics as usual". I am also surprised that you [Greg] doubt the allegation, it seems like exactly what R Emanuel or one of his henchmen would do. I believe Sestak and think that it should be investigated.

Posted by: stevens3 | May 26, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

BBQ: "The only way this is a story is if Sestak completely made it up."

I've been thinking about this possibility, too, although I kinda think it's more likely that some conversation was had, and Sestak has overblown it.

This timeline has already been established:

3/27/09 Ray Mabus was nominated for Secy of the Navy.
4/28/09 Specter changes parties.
5/18/09 Mabus confirmed as Secy of Navy.
5/28/09 Sestak declares for Senate.

Seems unlikely that Navy Secy would have been offered.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 26, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bubba,

I'll try to explain in simple language:

Blagojevich was selling a Senate seat for money.

Obama, as head of the Democratic party, MAY have discussed with a party member a delay in running for the Senate seat. That MAY have included a tentative discussion regarding a position on the national committee, his staff, or support for another office. None of these are illegal or impeachable.

And Republicans are liars and hypocrites if they claim their party hasn't often done the same thing many times.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

@sue "Yeah, and a little light in the gray matter, to boot."

It's like Sarah Palin, with testicles.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 26, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that if the Navy Secretary position had been offered, Sestak wouldn't be running for Senate.

Sestak might have campaigned for it, but it wasn't offered to him.

Posted by: Beeliever | May 26, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

All, happy hour roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/happy_hour_roundup_16.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 26, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever,

Yet again with unsubstantiated claims of fraud and or other allegations about the RNC. IF anything you say had credibility in that light. Your lawyer shark party would have run with it a long time ago. But no, y'all make accusations that you can't back up in court and REPEAT them till they become part of the mythos that you fabricate, and call history.
Much like any scandal, if there is nothing to it, humor the opposition and it'll go away. You believe that it'll go away, right? A whole lot of people out there think the Kenyan isn't eligible. And he has invested much money in obfuscating his past. Millions really. So if it's nothing humor it and prove your case and we'll all collectively move along.
But no, you demi Trotskyists think you are above it all. As a matter of fact laughably you think you need to use simple language with me sir? I've read your drunken sorrority girl mental vomitous and am thoroughly unimpressed.

Hugs and kisses Phi Kap,
Love Bubba

Posted by: bubbahercules | May 26, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget the #1 intention of the (R) party: Much ado about anything and everything, unless it's important. Big woo!

Posted by: hoser3 | May 26, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

@ifthe-

Well gee I see just a couple problems with your childrens story:

1) It's in the New Yorker.
2) It's completely un-sourced. Not one on the record quote of any value.
3) Even if it were true all that could be said would be that the Bushies had been too kindly to some Paki Taliban supporters. Kindliness (I think) is not a war crime.
4) It never mentions Dick Cheney at all, let alone stopping the bombardment. I search the page for Cheney I get nada.
5) It was 2001 not 1981.

So, so far you've linked really great Cheny stories from totally middle of the road outlets.

Here's another. It's from National Review. Funny, but they seem to think Dick is the bees knees. I guess it's all in the perspective huh?:

http://article.nationalreview.com/269245/cheneys-supposed-lie/eugene-volokh

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan offered him a job to frop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

@yuda-

On the contrary, para 6 of your own link quotes Hayakawa "I have not been in contact with the administration regarding any administration or ambassadadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me".

I would say that is just a SMIDGE different than both parties saying there was an offer, even tho one assures us "nothing inapropriate" was done.

Posted by: jay17 | May 26, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Jay,

That same paragraph of the article quotes Ed Rollins, Reagan's chief political advisor, saying that "Haykawa will be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election". How is offering a "bribe" in public differ from one done directly?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Jay,

That same paragraph of the article (Hayakawa Spurns Job Offer) quotes Ed Rollins, Reagan's chief political advisor, saying that "Hayakawa will be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election". How is offering a "bribe" in public differ from one done directly? The Reaganites were doing the exact same thing, with the added flourish of doing it in the public press rather than by telephone. These two cases are exactly the same!

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I have followed you for sometime. I have to wonder if you are really a Sargent, you really embarrass the name with all the progressive crap! I think the WH has some explaining to do........

Posted by: jeffsargent | May 26, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Fine.
Republicans want an investigation that will shut down doing the business of the country over this?
Go ahead.
Investigate,
But I think it is time for the DOJ to begin investigating Bush and Chaney.

By the way R's was it a crime when Regan did it or only when the President is a Democrat?

Posted by: vintagejulie | May 26, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm wrong here, but how could this be a bribe? I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that a bribe is when A gives, or offers to give, B something of value, whether money, land, a job or something else, and then B does A some kind of favor in an official capacity of a government job.

So, if A gives B's son a job, and B is a judge, and throws out evidence from a trial in which A is a party or something, then that's a bribe. If A gives B, a customs officer, $100 if A doesn't go through B's bag, then that is a bribe. If A, who is a president, gives B, a senator, a seat ont he Supreme Court if B will vote for bill number whatever, then that is a bribe.

But I don't see how Sestak's backing out of a political campaign is a favor in his official capacity as a House member. He isn't saying he'll vote for this or that bill or against this or that amendment or for this or that nominee. All he's doing is dropping his Senate run. That's a PRIVATE choice. You could call it a favor, but it's still a PRIVATE favor. How can that be bribery? I think the Republicans are nuts for trying to make this into a big deal, at least if we're talking about the legal or ethical merits of the thing. As far as fundraising goes, and stoking up the teabaggers goes, it might make sense, I guess, but really, there doesn't seem to be any wrongdoing here to me.

If I'm wrong and there are any lawyers here who know more about this than I do, then by all means, set me straight.

Posted by: zarzamora | May 26, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats include
a) if Sestak were a Republican, he wouldn't be surprised to be offered a job
b) if Sestak were a Republican, Republican pundits would ignore the problem, rather than demand that Sestak "come clean"
c) if Sestak were a Republican, Democrats in Congress wouldn't demand a special prosecutor
d) if Sestak were a Republican, the job offer would be made on the floor of Congress in front of witnesses

Remind me why I should care about this?

Posted by: rick_desper | May 27, 2010 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Tempest in the tea pot. This is the kind of nonsense the right wing corporate media, like the Washington Post, that channels right wingers is known to pursue with gusto.

Posted by: kevin1231 | May 27, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

why the burden on Sestak? In any other administration, you and the WP would be all over the story and the burden would be squarely on the white house!

Posted by: sagedutch | May 27, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

"The primary burden rests on Sestak to clarify what happened -- because he made the claim in the first place."

I've been saying this from the beginning. Sestak is the one people should be criticizing and hammering for a truthful and forthright answer. Sestak talks big but says little, just like a typical politician; he claims he's different, but he's just another hypocrite.

Posted by: ccs53 | May 27, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

That's funny, Sargent, because Anthony Weiner and the chairman of the DNC sure seem to think that The White House has a lot to answer for here.

Maybe if Robert "Nothing To See Here" Gibbs was remotely competent at his job, you might have a point. But he has invited the inquiries with his constant obfuscation and avoidance, so now the White House is neck deep in it.

But seeing as how Obama can do no wrong in your eyes, I don't expect you to see that.

Obama could be selling babies on the black market and you'd applaud him for helping to promote families and creating jobs.

Another FAIL for Sargent. What else is new?

Posted by: etpietro | May 27, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Sestak's mess? Granted, Sestak committed the crime of having too much candor, but this wouldn't have been an issue if the White House hadn't made the job offer. This is the White House's mess, not Sestak's, Greg. Could you be a bigger Obama cheerleader?

Posted by: CharlesBird | May 27, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

wasnt he a Navy ADM? experience tells me this kind of inuendo comes natural...

Posted by: mloaks | May 27, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Why did the Post offer a job to this guy? He's a major slobbering bootlicking sycophant without a shred of objectivity.

Interesting (not really, it's boringly expected) that this guy did NOT mention the Democrats who are now calling for the truth to come out including Durbin of all people. The author may think it's no big deal (another non surprise), but it must be, must it not, if the Obama and his minions continue their desperate non answers.

Posted by: bandmom22 | May 27, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama should be indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for bribing Sestak with this job offer.

This Criminal-in-Chief is a disgrace to the United States of America.


Posted by: Jerzy | May 27, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

If what Sestak said is true that is a felony so either Sestak is a lier or there's a felon in the white house.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 27, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Sestak did what he thought he had to do because President Obama and Reid threw him aside for Specter. Sestak was hurt because he was the true Democrat and Specter wasn't. Sestak should have known his career doesn't belong to him. It belongs to President Obama and Reid. After the passage of health care no Democrat who voted for it can claim any personal core principles or have any personal desires anymore. Their votes for the passage of health care were their signatures that they gave up all their rights and careers to President Obama. Sestak knew what he was expected to sacrifice and didn't do it. He thought things were going to go back to normal and he was wrong. Sestak is part of the corruption in Washington. He knew if he said someone made him an offer, the tide would change from Specter to him. He played his cards and it paid off. Now he's trying to say the person who made him the offer is not important. It's time to move on and he's not going to play politics. Well, the fact of the matter is that when he made the claim, it was based solely on politics. When Bush was in office he appointed an independent counsel. Can we expect President Obama to do the same. No we can't, because the interpretation has already been deemed nothing there. What a crock.

Posted by: houstonian | May 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

To Obambi and his "fellow travelers" - you got caught! It's amazing how all of the Dimcrats are hollering and screaming "Blame George Bush". That's all they know how to do - well, besides raise our taxes. It will be so good to see them gone this fall. Yippee !!!

Posted by: emyers12345 | May 27, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

To Obambi and his "fellow travelers" - you got caught! It's amazing how all of the Dimcrats are hollering and screaming "Blame George Bush". That's all they know how to do - well, besides raise our taxes. It will be so good to see them gone this fall. Yippee !!!

Posted by: emyers12345
===================
Your racism and disrespect are noted.

As for raising taxes..
yeah DUDE you have to pay for the things you voted for

Like two wars and a busted financial system.

AND regulations you removed to keep us safe.

What did you think that was FREE..??

OH yea..you are a republican..
still a narcistic child that never grew up..

Posted by: godwithfire55 | May 27, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

To godwithfire55 - your name showS which one of us is narcisstic - NOT ONLY GOD, BUT GODWITHFIRE and a 55IQ. I am so impressed. I'm sure that all of the bailouts the Dimrats have shoved on us, including the one contemplated for the union pension funds are paid for. BY OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN!!
Y'all are so pitiful. Like I stated - thank god (not you) the stable will be cleaned this November. Start the brooms sweeping.

Posted by: emyers12345 | May 27, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

If Obama actually did this -- if he offered Sestak a job to drop out of his race -- he is in big trouble. The statute exists for a reason. And, I say this as an Obama supporter. . . .

Posted by: teoandchive | May 27, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

sbj -- the read of the good government types seems right to me, given what we know

and good call maritza

==========================================

LOL, liberals supporting liberals. Of course it "seems right", given what you know.

If there is nothing to hide why are both parties being so quiet about it? I know why, because it is illegal! That's why!

Can you imagine what is going to happen to the Obama presidency and his legacy when it comes out that his Administration bribed people! LOL!! This is going to be great.

But I love how liberals are quick to dismiss it. LOL!! And the burden of proof should only fall on Sastec.

Here is the reality. Either Sastec is an idiot for even suggesting that happened. Or the White House has just committed a major crime! Either way, bad things are going to happen as a result of this for the Democrats.

No wonder the liberals news is keeping quiet on this. If this were Bush, there would be calls for his impeachment by the liberals. Oh wait, I forgot, that is exactly what happened with the CIA leak!

But somehow this situation is different! I wonder why! LOL

Liberal are such hyprocrits, it is laughable!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 27, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Zarzamora you answered your question in your first paragraph he was offered a job that's something of walue.
And it's the law.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 27, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"But that doesn't change the fact that Sestak has played this too cute by half, and he needs to clean up this mess. He needs to clarify what exactly happened -- even if it's thoroughly uncontroversial. For his own good and for the sake of the Democratic Party."

As a long-time Democrat who has never voted Republican, I agree.

Democrats should not fear the truth coming out, whether ugly, unflattering, or even illegal.

Clear it up, quickly, one way or another. The Party is strengthened ultimately.

Posted by: HillRat | May 27, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

IF your defending this type of behavior (payolla, bribes, the old boy network), you've chosen a side that's not We the People. I'd like to hear what Sestak has to say. You don't send an ex-POTUS on a feelers mission. If this is way business in done in DC, time for a change is coming in November. You can either be part of that change or except the status quo. I don't think this passes the smell test for most Americans.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | May 28, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company