Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

How the Sestak job offer became a big deal

Updated: 5:23 p.m.
Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.

And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.

That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.

"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."

Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".

The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is here.)

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."

The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."

Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.

"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.

Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).

Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.

Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.

Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem.

It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.


The Sestak story continued ....

How Bill Clinton has become the roving fixer for the Obama administration.

The cover up is worse than the non-crime.

Joe Sestak released a statement on the conversation.

Republicans had a quick response.

The White House released a memo on the matter.

Sestak's brother has talked with the White House.

Obama himself said that "nothing improper" took place.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 28, 2010; 11:28 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can Bill Clinton save Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas?
Next: Angry voters look to vulnerable governors

Comments

Most of you people have made careers out of things that were not big deals because your greatest fear is having to write something authenic or something of substance! You really should be ashamed of the low level for which you've dragged journalism down to (Tabloid press). I actually receive more real information from the Colert Report and the Daily Show! You let FIX NEWS give you the headlines and or lead - three days later you're all over it. When did you decide you had to be critical of everything with your opinions rather than simply reporting what happened? None of you are read to be informed anymore - people read you now to see what slant you are taking and how extreme because we already know real journalism is dead. Even for me, during the Bush years I formed the habit of having to describe terms like leadership to real leadership. Now when I describe journalism, I have to say real journalism. Well, congratulations - you've managed to make people like Palin, McCain, McCornell, even Lott and Jim DeMint creditable not respectable but somehow creditable, most for your own amusement kind of like what you did for Bush in 2000. Its not the politicans we should feel anger towards!

Posted by: mcgeenate | June 1, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Most of you people have made careers out of things that were not big deals because your greatest fear is having to write something authenic or something of substance! You really should be ashamed of the low level for which you've dragged journalism down to (Tabloid press). I actually receive more real information from the Colert Report and the Daily Show! You let FIX NEWS give you the headlines and or lead - three days later you're all over it. When did you decide you had to be critical of everything with your opinions rather than simply reporting what happened? None of you are read to be informed anymore - people read you now to see what slant you are taking and how extreme because we already know real journalism is dead. Even for me, during the Bush years I formed the habit of having to describe terms like leadership to real leadership. Now when I describe journalism, I have to say real journalism. Well, congratulations - you've managed to make people like Palin, McCain, McCornell, even Lott and Jim DeMint creditable not respectable but somehow creditable, most for your own amusement kind of like what you did for Bush in 2000. Its not the politicans we should feel anger towards!

Posted by: mcgeenate | June 1, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

It now appears that, in ANY case, it is an IMPOSSIBILITY for a sitting House Representative to hold a position like the one Obama and Company SAY they offered him. (Which makes sense, because it seemed re-e-eally wierd, anyway: how could a Congressman have a position in the Executive Branch? Isn't that like the POTUS being a Supreme Court Justice?)
SO-O-O-o-o-o-o.... that leaves ONLY THREE options:
A) The Obama Administration is a pack of inept morons who never even realized they were offering Sestak a job they could never give him.
B) The Obama Administration knew perfectly well they could never give Sestak the job but hoped he was enough of a moron not to catch on till it was too late.
C) The Obama Administration never offered Sestak that position to begin with and is hoping the whole country is enough of a moron to buy this lie.
SO-O-O-o-o-o.... which do YOU think it is, A, B, or C?
(I vote for C)

Posted by: scriobhaim | June 1, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

Hey Mr. President-
Are you commander in chief?
Over the Navy too?
Still funding and staffing SUBMARINES?
Do you think it's worth a few million funding an attempt at using them to close this leak?
Want to try sinking a few dozen barges full of really heavy, large objects over it?
No....I guess this weekend is better spent in Chicago "Brainstorming" over SESTAKgate while our environment goes to hell over a leaking deep sea well approved by your inept administration!

Posted by: thecannula | May 31, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey Mr. President-
Are you commander in chief?
Over the Navy too?
Still funding and staffing SUBMARINES?
Do you think it's worth a few million funding an attempt at using them to close this leak?
Want to try sinking a few dozen barges full of really heavy, large objects over it?
No....I guess this weekend is better spent in Chicago "Brainstorming" over SESTAKgate while our environment goes to hell over a leaking deep sea well approved by your inept administration!

Posted by: thecannula | May 31, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

More Good News for Those who back Obama and Israel-

We TOLD you so-


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5eaf6bbb255b23063c3b3635bd5f7c52.161&show_article=1

Posted by: thecannula | May 31, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

We need to send a message to Washington that politics as usual CANNOT be conducted in an Illegal manner...regardless of what party you are in. Go to http://www.kickhimout.com and sign the petition to Impeach President Barack Obama, as well as the one DEMANDING and independent investigation into this matter. Together, our voice will be heard. Together, we are UNITED. Together, we are the PEOPLE. Together, we HAVE THE POWER.

UNITED PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER!
Go to http://www.kickhimout.com and sign the petition today!

Posted by: Kick-Him-Out | May 31, 2010 6:02 AM | Report abuse

Trying to control an election via a power bribe is hardly an "innocent" act. It's the type of typical political manipulation that the American people have become aware of more and more in recent years and been outraged over. Besides that, we need term limits (surely 4 terms should be enough power in one lifetime for anyone in Congress) and we need to change the law that grants every member FULL SALARY for the rest of their lives. None of the Federal govt workers get this, so why should they? They are already positioned to make money after leaving office writing books and giving speeches to supplement their retirement years with not a whole lot of effort. COngress wants to reduce benefits - I say they should start with themselves first.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | May 30, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

C'mon folks. Call your friends. We can get up to 1000 posts.

YES

WE

CAN!!!

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 30, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The Sestak job offer is not a big deal - at least not to the liberal media. They are closing a tight rank behind Obama to protect him at all cost. I hope that Issa may be able to penetrate the liberal ranks and get to the truth of the matter. But he will be opposed on every hand, and probably come up empty-handed due to the liberal majority in Congress who oppose any probe into this matter. Their "golden boy" has to be protected at all cost. Had this been Bush, my, oh my, we would have been bombarded night and day with mean-spirited innuendos and half-truth by the liberal media.

Posted by: Tommypie | May 30, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who actually believes that this non-paying advisary job is the only thing that was offered tosestak you are smoking some of the good white house crack.

Sestak duh ya i'll give up being a congressman or senator for some non paying job are you for real.This stinks big time.Funny how they had months to get there story straight then when pressed the next day they come up with this BS story from clinton who has no power to offer nothing or rahm emanuel is toast for offing it.It is tampering even if it is a non paying job but the position has value.
Then they call his brother so all parties could get their storys straight who couldn't see that coming DUH!
Maybe he should have put them getting their stories straight on cspan? yeah like that was going to happen LMAO

I love the transparency in this admin. that was so promised and that they wouldn't be like old washington.He 's right it is different it's chicago style polotics

Posted by: romokadja | May 30, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What I have noticed is that in the Jewish community they seems to love to criticize other races of people but when it comes to them holding their own weight....THEY DON'T!!....

Everyone is hollowing Obama sent Clinton after Slestak...When it has been confirmed that Rahm Emanuel sent Clinton to speak with Stesak!

But I noticed Wolf Blitzer, Bill Maher and Keith Olberman started off stating it was Obama sending Clinton not Rahm sending Clinton

Obama needs to stick closer to Hillary and Joe Biden...I think they will speak the truth to him no matter what without trying to play neopotism

Posted by: dove369 | May 30, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I see that the herd has finished thundering through. What a shame. I was hoping we'd get up to 1000 posts. Maybe next time. ;-)

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 30, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

If this is just "politics as usual" then why are they going after Blago?

Posted by: sully64 | May 30, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The press is the biggest factor in this non-story. They can spout more words and write more lines on nothing which is what this so-called story turned out to be. Write on the jobs that President Reagan and others before President Obama offerred to keep someone from running and those that were taken - paying jobs. This story had no legs, no feet, no nothing but the press gave it to it.

Posted by: withersb | May 30, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

NY Times 5/28/10-

Very simple and quoted by the liberal NY Times-

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

Posted by: thecannula | May 30, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

I usually make it a point never to watch Sean Hannity but did so on Friday night for his "special." The man was almost foaming at the mouth with the thought that Obama had committed an impeachable offense. Of course, he had the usual conservative talking heads to back him up. Hannity is only one of the anti-Obama crew who will keep this at full boil. While it seems a bit murky, it appears that Clinton, at the behest of the White House, was more on an exploratory mission than actually offering a job, and a non-paying position on a council is hardly a "job." Is that a crime or just a thoughtless political move? As it is, the President needs to replace Robert Gibbs as soon as possible. That man is a disaster and is only aggravating Obama's already tense relationship with the media.

Posted by: Aquarius1 | May 30, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

I have reached the point of only being able to stomach, two or three lines of this over played misdemeanor (as Reagan's worse offense was not ever even discussed) in comparison to BP-like corporations completely owning ALL regulating agencies far more than this incident displays.10. LOBBYING ENFLUENCE
a. http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.php
b. http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/index.php
complete elimination of Safety organizations is far more worthy of news.

Control of elections through slaughter of safety, voting rights, voting machines, and equal rights, THIS year, and it's impact on freedom.

Simplified - Why are there 5 lobbyists to every senator? Why are they all 'against' the agenda we voted for?

Posted by: profoundimagery1 | May 30, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

Precision matters.

In a legal context "Just compensation" means something (e.g. as in fair market value).

In a less formal sense "just compensation or no compensation" is just sloppy reasoning -- it's a little bit like saying someone is a "little pregnant".

Either a person receives compensation (money or something of value), or they don't. Saying that person "only received compensation" says nothing.

"Only compensation or no compensation"??? Seriously, what the heck does that mean?

I've belabored the point far enough already.

As far as this being a "left or right" dilemma, I don't see it that way. Showing respect for precedent fundamentally is a conservative approach to law and politics (at least with respect to law I would consider myself a Burkean conservative). Unfortunately, the term "conservative" these days has become more accurately a euphemism for "proud to be ignorant".

In any event . . . life goes on.

Posted by: JPRS | May 30, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"Change you can believe in?"- Sure Nixon, Reagan, and Bush might have done the same with Sestak- AND Bill Maher and Michael Moore would be SCREAMING- where are they now?

For that matter IMAGINE how Maher/Moore would be screaming about the inept "What Me Worry" job President Obama is doing to curb the flow of oil in the gulf- what would they be saying if a Bush was in office- HYPOCRITES! (Do we still have a Navy? With submarines?)

NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!

Posted by: thecannula | May 29, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

JPRS

And oh yes, the comment, "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms." was made in response to your implied position that the offer to Mr. Sestak did not promise compensation and therefore would not be illegal in the context of the law we were discussing.

I was under the impression that we were having a dialoge, apparently, and not surprisingly, not in your mind.

Folks, now tell me, isn't this more entertaining than a night of watching that chewing gum for the mind, ie: TV?

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

JPRS

Wow are you stretching it now.

This may come as news, but...the English language allows for more than one meaning to a word and I realize that the left is programmed to always be on the defensive, however, when a statement is made and then taken out of context.

Oh yes, Folks here we are to number 5 of Alinsky's model, take everything out of context and blow it out of proportion so that the opponent will spend his time trying to defend your attack and will have little or no time to make his point.

Anyway, Just open your mind for a moment and consider this. When the statement is made such as "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."

The word "just" is used to supplant the word "only".

OK so you made your point and it was rebuked.

Your turn.

And that should have been a hookah rather than hooter.

It really takes so little to rattle the left..... you are only proving my points with regards to you and "your" kind.

Wow now that I left myself wide open, either JPRS or another leftie may attempt to take that out of context and play the race-bait card...shhh, don't tell anyone, they may never notice on their own....

Lefties are the craziest peoples.....

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

"Where in any of MY posts did I mention "Just Compensation"."

In your 1:39 PM post -- that's where . . .

"If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Sorry folks,

Outside the beltway, nobody really cares.

Well maybe the few idiots who live outside the beltway, like Sean, Billy and Glen (the child attacking bully) who make their living by self-styled bull---- from the right which they try to pass off as news. Or, perhaps a few confused liberals like Rachel, Chris and Keith who try to sound in the know and intellectual but aren't.

Other than them, and apparently Congressman Issa, it's a trial ballon that's not flying.

Hmm? Issa? Yes he is a piece of work who ought to be working for his constituents or returning his salary.

Posted by: JohninConnecticut | May 29, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

SO not saying anything is "acting guilty when you're innocent?" Gimme a f*&^% break.

The Obama admin had, lets see, a PB spill of epic proportions, Elena Kagan, FinReg, and all the usual stuff that an admin does on a daily basis.

And not answering to GOP hack Darryl Issa makes them "guilty looking"?

Nutso.

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

JPRS

Hey man what end of that hooter you sucking on?

Where in any of MY posts did I mention "Just Compensation".

Once again a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth er... posts, and as far as the rest of your drivel, I won't even waste more of my time.

You are way off the charts now.

I only hope that the gallery is taking note of how shook the left gets when you "dare" stand toe to toe with them.

Sit back-n-chill dude, you are hallucinating

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

I don't see much evidence that you "love America".

You throw around a term like "Just Compensation" in the context of bribery and corruption.

Yet, if you could actually recall where you'd heard that term used before you would know that it is IN THE CONSTITUTION. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with bribery and corruption. Here's a hint: Re-read the 5th amendment. Or perhaps read it for the first time.

If a person is ignorant of the American Constitution, then that person professes their love on the basis of ignorance, not knowledge.

If a person does not know and understand American history and legal traditions, then whose to say whether they truly "love America"?

Clearly you are hostile to some long established traditions that have made this country great.

Chief among these is the notion that political disputes are usually settled in the political realm, not in the Courts. This concept is so basic and fundamental to the American system, yet you appear to be completely ignorant of it.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

ProCounsel,

What you're describing is a method of police work that usually results in

A. Bad police work.
B. The prosecution of innocent people

e.g. rather than following the evidence to where it leads and narrowing the pool of suspects based ON THE EVIDENCE, the police plant evidence and shape testimonies in order to gain a conviction of a pre-selected defendant.

Based on your approach, it would have been impossible for the investigators to have located the suspect in the recent failed Times Square attack, because the person was just one anonymous guy out of several million people. They did not know in advance who committed the crime, and there was no way that they could have known.

Unless you're dealing with a small community where everyone knows each another, then the "presumption of guilt" standard is likely to steer you wrong more often than not.

icsjp2003,

"No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent."

That statement literally makes no sense. The prosecutor makes no "assumption of precedent". The prosecutor will look to precedent for guidance on how to apply and interpret a law.

"The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent."

Only if a prosecutor finds cause and files suit.

"There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?"

Not only have there only been "a few" prosecutions -- the one prosecution brought under the law has no bearing on the facts involved in this case. This means that a new prosecution would involve a novel application of the law. After 70 years, it is at best, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the law would be used on this basis.

In the end, does this mean that anyone knows absolutely how this will play out?

Of course not.

What it does mean is that the legal foundation for any case would be built on a shaky foundation from the outset. It would quite literally create a new standard of illegal political action. Of course, time will tell how things play out.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

People, take note and see what the left resorts to with no viable argument.

Ahh... the Grand spectacle of the wretched......

You see, they hate each one of us, they hate the United States, they hate what it stands for and they hate the fact that we still have the freedom to speak our mind.

They hate it so much that they resort to childish tirades, name calling and then refuse to stick to the point in hopes of confusing and clouding the issue.

Yes, and there are those who hate us so much that some, maybe not those here, resort to more devious methods of silencing the freedom of speech.

That is why you all must speak up now, and decidedly in November, or pay the price in silence come tomorrow.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

JPRS

Just can't get through the discussion without insults eh? Well, I'll take that in view of the source then.

No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent. The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent. For a 70 year old law that has been tested so few times, I venture to guess there are many interpretations the courts could make of it.

There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?

Who are you to determine what the interpretation of the court will be based upon ALL the evidence.

What did we forget about evidence? Yes, there must be evidence as well and if the evidence is worthy, then you would be surprised what the courts deem as relevant. All he evidence has yet to come out.

I guess that book-lernin of yorn, might git ya pretty fer some day.

Now, it appears that we are boring our "so gracious" host here at the Washington Post.

Both of us have experienced "too many post" messages, and the newer cross posts are probably directed at breaking up the discussion anyway. Do ya think?

While we agree to disagree, I hold no malice, and you.... well... I pray you find your "Hope and Change".

I have enjoyed the exchange, and believe me, the pleasure was all mine.

Adieu

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

jprs wrote:

ProCounsel,

"1. start with what the president would do if guilty and work backwards"

Problem #1. No self-respecting investigator starts from the presumption of guilt. T

he person follows the evidence to where it leads.

A second-rate mind, has a pre-determined judgment, and then sorts the facts to fit his or her pre-determined conclusion.

Inadvertently, you have outlined the ways in which stupid people arrive at stupid conclusions.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

every day

in every city and every state

police solve murders

by investigating who had a motive for the killing

then backtracking

and eliminating those with true alibis

do the same for dear leader

oh--but attorney general holder announced obama's innnocence BEFORE any investigation

much cleaner that way

and a sure thing

Posted by: ProCounsel | May 29, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

37thandOstreet wrote:


ProCounsel


THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT SESTAK MADE YESTERDAY THAT Obama's people had contacted Sestak's brother.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

thank you--

where was it??

this is obama's pattern

Posted by: ProCounsel | May 29, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

ProCounsel


THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT SESTAK MADE YESTERDAY THAT Obama's people had contacted Sestak's brother.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

ProCounsel,

"1. start with what the president would do if guilty and work backwards"

Problem #1. No self-respecting investigator starts from the presumption of guilt. T

he person follows the evidence to where it leads.

A second-rate mind, has a pre-determined judgment, and then sorts the facts to fit his or her pre-determined conclusion.

Inadvertently, you have outlined the ways in which stupid people arrive at stupid conclusions.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

The issue of precedent is weighed by a prosecutor. This is not a controversial idea IF you have some grasp in the operation of our legal system.

No self-respecting prosecutor files suit without looking at previous application of the law, because to do so would pervert the application of Justice. (e.g. criminal prosecutions must relate to legal considerations, not political ones).

In the Soviet system, Stalin made no distinction between law and politics -- the courts were merely an instrument for achieving political ends. Our system, mercifully, is different.

There is a separate political question at stake here. If a person genuinely finds this matter to be troubling, then they have a recourse in the voting booth.

In a representative democracy, even uneducated fools have the right to exercise their poorly formed judgments about law, policy, and politics in the voting booth. That's yet another feature of our system that separates us from the Communists. At least on that score, I suspect we both agree.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse


LET ME BE CLEAR

IT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI

Obama gets a THIRD PARTY TO GO MAKE AN OFFER. IN THE BLAGO CASE, IT WAS THE UNION OFFICIAL.

This provides two means of potential deniablity - one is there is a third party there, the other is if the thing of value being transacted goes through a third party, then it has the potential to be denied.


Also, if that third party is giving something of value - AND then receiving something ELSE AS COMPENSATION - then there is another level of deniability.

But the concept is the same.


THE ALLEGATION IS CLEAR: OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE ASKED THE UNION OFFICIAL TO MAKE AN OFFER TO BLAGO - IN ORDER TO GET VALERIE JARRETT APPOINTED AS US SENATOR.


IF THERE WAS ANY OFFER OR BID, THERE WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

It doesn't matter if the Union official was expecting compensation or whatever those arrangements were made - the OFFER TO BLAGO WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THE GROUP BECAUSE THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER.


They have EVIDENCE THAT THE UNION OFFICIAL CONTACTED BLAGO -


AND SUPPOSEDLY THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME TAPED CONVERSATIONS.

IN ANY EVENT, THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED FULLY BY AN INDEPEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.


OBAMA PROMISED THE NATION THAT HE WOULD DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY - AND THAT LEVEL OF HYPOCRISY DESERVES AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

investigating a president
for dummies

granted, cillizza and the lesser media all stars will have some difficulty

investigating obama

like the attorney general officially assuming the ostrich position

and all electronic trails of a president are ,understandably, blocked for security purposes

but media all stars should:

1.start with what the president would do if guilty
and work backwards

2. first, the president would retain private counsel to sterilize and insulate the white house counsel’s office and its pesky paper and electronic trail

3. so ask if the white house counsel represents obama, or would there be a conflict of interest

4. does sestak have counsel

5. who has contacted sestaks counsel

6. any top notch dc criminal attys visiting obama on vacation

7. call the clintons private attys from their impeachment ask them generic questions as impeachment experts ask them the top 3 attys in dc for the job

8. has holder named or designated an atty to monitor any criminal prosecution if not why not? if so who has contacted her?

9. ask the top criminal defense atty what they would be doing now to protect the president

10. watch sistaks family carefully-- the obama way is to quietly mention or become involved with a sistak family member

Posted by: ProCounsel | May 29, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse


Brigade


The reason there are so many comments on the other thread is there is a link to it on the front page - anyway -


Obviously - this is an important topic

OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE HIMSELF.

ALSO - OBAMA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE BLAGO SITUATION SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO AS WELL - IF OBAMA AND HIS CREW (INCLUDING THE UNION CHIEF) MADE ANY KIND OF OFFER TO BLAGO IN AN EFFORT TO GET VALERIE JARRETT IN, THAT IS THE SAME EXACT THING.


Blago didn't have to accept the offer.

But if there was ANY KIND OF OFFER OR BID MADE TO BLAGO BY OBAMA'S PEOPLE, THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.

EVEN IF IT WAS A THIRD PARTY MAKING THE OFFER.

FOR INSTANCE - IF THE UNION OFFICIAL WAS IN THERE TO OFFER BLAGO SOMETHING - WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OFFER WAS TO GET VALERIE JARRETT THE APPOINTMENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

IF OBAMA OR OBAMA'S PEOPLE ASKED THE UNION OFFICIAL TO TALK TO BLAGO TO MAKE AN OFFER OR A BID, THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.


Sure seems like there may have been something there - with the UNION OFFICIAL ACTUALLY TAKING STEPS AFTER TALKING TO OBAMA'S PEOPLE - SO A PLAN WAS IN THE WORKS - THE UNION OFFICIAL DID TALK TO BLAGO.

THIS WHOLE THING NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Brigade


The reason there are so many comments on the other thread is there is a link to it on the front page - anyway -


Obviously - this is an important topic

OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE HIMSELF.

ALSO - OBAMA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE BLAGO SITUATION SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO AS WELL - IF OBAMA AND HIS CREW (INCLUDING THE UNION CHIEF) MADE ANY KIND OF OFFER TO BLAGO IN AN EFFORT TO GET VALERIE JARRETT IN, THAT IS THE SAME EXACT THING.


Blago didn't have to accept the offer.

But if there was ANY KIND OF OFFER OR BID MADE TO BLAGO BY OBAMA'S PEOPLE, THEN THERE IS A PROBLEM.

EVEN IF IT WAS A THIRD PARTY MAKING THE OFFER.

FOR INSTANCE - IF THE UNION OFFICIAL WAS IN THERE TO OFFER BLAGO SOMETHING - WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OFFER WAS TO GET VALERIE JARRETT THE APPOINTMENT, THEN THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

IF OBAMA OR OBAMA'S PEOPLE ASKED THE UNION OFFICIAL TO TALK TO BLAGO TO MAKE AN OFFER OR A BID, THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.


Sure seems like there may have been something there - with the UNION OFFICIAL ACTUALLY TAKING STEPS AFTER TALKING TO OBAMA'S PEOPLE - SO A PLAN WAS IN THE WORKS - THE UNION OFFICIAL DID TALK TO BLAGO.

THIS WHOLE THING NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

JONWINDY - ROFLMAO

JPRS

Granted, the first step will take a prosecutor to step up to the plate. Most definitely one who has no fear of the reprocussions from this administration.
This will come from a concerted effort on the part of the US Citizens demanding that justice be done.

This is not in contention, the issue of precedent, however, has been, and that is determined by the court, not the prosecutor, defense attorney, or you and I.

Regardless, what I am hearing throughout all of this exchange is that, everyone else has been doing it, therefore it is acceptable and why "rock the boat"?

The fact is that it is not acceptable for any politician to participate in such activities.

Where this country has run off the rails is that we now have politicians telling us, the American Citizens and State governments, how the game is to be played rather than adhering to the US Constitution and following it's rules.

This is arse backwards and it needs to change otherwise we are in very serious trouble.

There has to be a starting point and if the Sestak debacle is it, then so be it!

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Sestak, Meshack...and Abednego!

Posted by: JONWINDY | May 29, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

This case will not make it to a judge.

Why?

Because a judge does not determine whether or not to bring suit. A federal prosecutor would first need to determine that this action involves a legal controversy and a violation of the law. If the federal prosecutor is worth his or her salt -- and respects the law -- the prosecutor will also look at the likelihood of a successful application of the law in the courts.

Litigation represents serious costs to a defendant; and generally, in our legal system at least, we try not to use the courts to settle purely political disputes (the Clinton era was perhaps a bit of a low-point in this regard for Clinton himself).

It's usually a bad sign for the prospects of a prosecution when the only people saying that this represents a clear violation of the law are highly partisan college drop outs like Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Glenn Beck -- with no training in law.

It's only marginally stronger sign when you have a handful of highly partisan lawyers arguing that there "might" be some basis for a prosecution.

The odds of this controversy coming before a judge are close to nil.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

JPRS

Class....Class!
Step three in recognizing the Alinsky model:
Discredit the opponent by placing words in their mouth.

I will let the readers digest your last comments and make their own determinations.

Now, look up the term "Judicial Precedent". No where does it list you or myself as the determining factor.

It leaves it up to the court and a judge.

Although I know there are attorneys or wanna-be-attorneys who would have us believe that they are the sole determination of precedent, but then that is why we have the courts.

Thank God we still have the courts.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

As a side note:

"Just Compensation" has absolutely nothing to do with bribery or corruption statutes.

This should be a pretty basic point.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

The funny thing is that Stalin would share your view of the law.

e.g. "Precedent? What's precedent? The law is what I say it is. It achieves whatever ends it is that I want to achieve! I use it without any regard for how it has been used!"

The crazy thing too is that you think it is "Capitalist" to turn a blind eye on selling legislation for money.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Look, final thoughts on this.

If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms.

However, the law specificly 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 under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "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" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.

Last modified: April 13, 2006

I see alot more than just an offer of compensation there.

Once again regardless of what happened in the Bush admin, or the Regan admin or what happened in Californica, none of it is applicable to the case at hand. Just because one or more persons got away with it does not mean that the law is invalid or un-applicable.

That is for the courts to decide.

Nuff said

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JPRS Said

" The only people who read Saul Alinsky these days are wingnuts on the right."

That's because the Left have already learned it. Not just the left but progressives on the right have learned this too.

Evil is all around us. Stand in the truth and all else will burn.

It's not how long you live. It's what you do when you are here that counts. MLK and JFK are crying as they look down upon us.

********************************************
STAND IN THE TRUTH AND ALL ELSE WILL BURN.
********************************************

Posted by: Tate | May 29, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

"You can babble all you want about precident but I do not decide what is applicable nor do you. The courts decide that. If there was or is no precident, then why does the law exist. Based upon your arguments, the law should not exist."

You don't understand precedent. That much is clear.

Effectively you are saying that we should just ignore standard legal practice and blindly prosecute the case without any regard for the law as written and enforced.

Based upon my argument, I would say that the law exists and has been enforced only in a very narrow set of circumstances involving the explicit sale of a political office for cash considerations (political donations). The law in this case has absolutely no application.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I've just read the article and all the accompanying comments.

This is what I am seeing here:

Somebody is lying. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Let's go back in time, shall we?

Everything's cool with the dirty deal Rahmobama made with Arlen to switch parties so they'd have their 60th vote sealed for the Healthcare "Reform" (snark) legislation etc.

Then Sestak had to get all Democratic uppity on them and jump in the race. Rahmobama decided the "field needed to be cleared".

It wouldn't be Kosher for either one of them to call Sestak and "clear the field". So they had to get somebody to do their bidding.

They couldn't just go to Sestak "empty handed". So they offered him the "non-paying" "JOB" of being on the Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board. Even Sestak has admitted this was the position Bubba offered him to "keep his House seat" and let Arlen become the 60th vote.

There's just one teeny, tiny problem with "their plan". When someone sits on the Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board, they are NOT ALLOWED TO HOLD ANY FEDERAL OFFICE. Which obviously means Sestak would have had to agree to give up his House seat AND not run for the Senate:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/sestak-was-ineligible-for-job-clinton-offered-95167459.html

Let's all recall that impeachment didn't rear it's ugly head at Clinton for having sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinsky. It was for LYING UNDER OATH.

Because the "stories" they have produced are only making the water murkier and murkier, I would like to see a full House Judiciary Committee hearing take place on this matter and along with that I would DEMAND that Rep. Sestak, his brother, his wife, Rahm Emmanuel, Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Specter and anyone else involved in this matter have ALL pertinent emails/phone records subpeoned, and that they all be placed under oath and questioned as to the TRUTH about who said what to whom, when and why.

This is what should happen. This is what MUST happen. Because when they interfere this dramatically (and probably illegally) with the election process, this is a crime against the People that needs to be openly and transparently addressed.

Posted by: Abbybwood8 | May 29, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Let's see....

First: Name calling, and once I addressed that for what it was, the subsequent apology in order to validate the original statement.

Second: Then muddy the water with irrelevant information or rhetoric so that it re-directs the origninal argument or point that the opposition is trying to make.

"If you were really outraged about corruption in government, you would be asking people like Darrell Issa why he was trying to get the U.S. attorney in his home district (South District of California) fired back in 2005 and 2007. Soon after she successfully prosecuted Issa's colleague Randy Duke Cunningham for the largest bribery scandal in U.S. history, Issa and the rest of the GOP caucus in the House were pressuring the White House to get her removed from the job. Eventually they were successful."


Test book Alinsky with a hint of Marx thrown in for good measure.

I hope all of you are getting an education in dealing with the left.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

The defense is that politics in itself is not a crime. Horse-trading, earning chits, dispensing chits, are part of the nature of any political system.

"Material consideration" usually means an exchange of money.

In this case, the party leadership was trying to use its influence to shape the primary field. We still don't know what was offered -- if it was a non-paying seat on some board, then this is moot. Even if it was a position within the executive branch, I don't see the issue.

I'm much more concerned about the fact that we don't enforce clear cut cases of abuse.

e.g. Political staff shouldn't be telling the DOJ which US Attorneys to retain or fire mid-term. In the beginning of the term they might have some input, but they shouldn't be allowed to punish U.S. Attorneys for the failure to push purely politically motivated prosecutions. We should be closing down the revolving door between Congressional staff and executive agencies and the private sector; members of Congress themselves should be barred from federal lobbying for a LONG-TIME; spouses should not be allowed to earn a second income by cashing in on a husband or wife's political office.

All of these are much more problematic cases.

The thing that gets me about this case is the fact that Rahm tried to push a stronger candidate out of the Democratic Senate race in an attempt to mollify Specter and in order to retain Sestak's hard-won district in the House. I think he exercised poor political judgment. As far as legal questions go there's no issue. As far as ethical questions go, this one does get close to the line on Rahm's part. Sestak should actually be applauded for saying no.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

for the democRATS and libo out there:
george bus was a disater
hussein obama is more disastrous
transparency, transparncy, transparency
long live the king obama

Posted by: albertarraj | May 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

There is no more to say other than let the courts decide.

You can babble all you want about precident but I do not decide what is applicable nor do you. The courts decide that. If there was or is no precident, then why does the law exist. Based upon your arguments, the law should not exist.

Ahh... but the law does exist and I, for one, want the courts to decide if it is applicable, not you.

And in regards to Alinsky

"If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself"

"Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

An additional point. With respect to: "Basically, the GOP congressmen who are pushing this as some big controversy, think you're stupid."

This is not "name-calling" -- it is telling you how the GOP leadership views the base.

They do not respect people like you.

They might tell you to your face that they think you're the smartest person in the world, but actions like these reveal what their honestly held views about the base are.

At best they think your outrage is useful.

However, it's pretty clear that they don't respect your intelligence.

If you were really outraged about corruption in government, you would be asking people like Darrell Issa why he was trying to get the U.S. attorney in his home district (South District of California) fired back in 2005 and 2007. Soon after she successfully prosecuted Issa's colleague Randy Duke Cunningham for the largest bribery scandal in U.S. history, Issa and the rest of the GOP caucus in the House were pressuring the White House to get her removed from the job. Eventually they were successful.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Truth be known, ALL the politicians should have to play by the rule of law according to the US Constitution. Regardless if Republican or Democrat.

I do not defend either of them.

As the reasoning goes, however, since one got away with it, then it should be considered a "get out of jail free" card for the next..... NOT!

So goes the defense of the speeding driver pulled over and telling the cop that everyone else was doing it.

The time to hold ALL politicians accountable is NOW regardless of affiliation or political party.

It is time that the AMERICAN PEOPLE and the STATES took back the form of government that the founders established.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's 2008 PROMISES OF CHANGING THE WAY WASHINGTON DOES BUSINESS

Has basically become "Fall Back on one of Bill Clinton's lies."


PLEASE - INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR IS NEEDED NOW.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I forget, please remind me what chapter Saul Alinskey taught that one?

Posted by: icsjp2003

////////////////////////////////

You tell me. The only people who read Saul Alinsky these days are wingnuts on the right.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

In American law we value things like PRECEDENT.

PRECEDENT serves as a guideline for how we punish certain crimes and how we interpret the law.

The only application of 18 USC section 600 that I've found involves a Nixon fundraiser who solicited a $100K donation in exchange for an ambassadorship (a case of literally selling an office for a "material consideration").

That's not really a parallel situation here, because no one is alleging that an Obama administration official solicited money from Sestak in exchange whatever post it is that they offered (assuming they even offered him a post).

We also know that in 1981 the Reagan administration attempted to get an incumbent GOP Senator to drop out of the race so that a favored candidate could win the party nomination. In exchange they offered him a post within the administration.

What happened? Was this case referred to Justice for prosecution?

No it was not. That can serve as a kind of precedent too.

In an exactly parallel situation no one in either party said "wow, this is a serious violation of the law!"

Precedent matters in American law. A person who does not understand that simple fact, does not understand a fundamental feature of our legal system.

In a dictatorship, people have the luxury of making the laws say whatever they want them to say, and applying them in wholly novel ways whenever they want. In our country, if there's an old law on the books, the cases prosecuted under the statute provide guidance. The legal history of 18 USC section 600 doesn't lend credence to this application of the law.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but think a lot of this story falls into the "plausible deniability" department, and it took some time to put it together; Sestak being the weak link to come around. This administration has no ethics above any other, and it is all about what you can get away with for political gain. Say or do anything for more power... period. Anybody that thought it would be different was sadly mistaken.

Posted by: AZsparrow | May 29, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but think a lot of this story falls into the "plausible deniability" department, and it took some time to put it together; Sestak being the weak link to come around. This administration has no ethics above any other, and it is all about what you can get away with for political gain. Say or do anything for more power... period. Anybody that thought it would be different was sadly mistaken.

Posted by: AZsparrow | May 29, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but think a lot of this story falls into the "plausible deniability" department, and it took some time to put it together; Sestak being the weak link to come around. This administration has no ethics above any other, and it is all about what you can get away with for political gain. Say or do anything for more power... period. Anybody that thought it would be different was sadly mistaken.

Posted by: AZsparrow | May 29, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Ouch, I had to re-read JPRS's post in order to get the real point of the post.

"Basically, the GOP congressmen who are pushing this as some big controversy, think you're stupid."

Now that hurt...*sniff, sniff* real bad.

Typical, when there is no argument, resort to name calling.. I forget, please remind me what chapter Saul Alinskey taught that one?

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

EVERYTHING about the Kenyan is corrupt! Incompetent too. Investigate. Impeach. Deport!

Posted by: member8 | May 29, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

JPRS

Apparently you have not read or do not fully understand the law cited.

Regardless of any previous precident, the law remains within the body of the US Code and is everybit as relevant as any other law.
Regarding precident, let the case at hand ie: the Sestak job offer, serve as precident.

Let me say this again, "let the court decide". If the court throws it out without a ruling, then I guess there is no case, if not, then....

Argue all you want but the courts decide what constitues the validity and application of law, not you or I.

This is the way it has been, and HOPEFULLY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WILL WAKE UP, so that this is the way it will continue, otherwise we might as well dump all laws and live in anarchy.

Again I ask the question, why so afraid of what the courts will decide?

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Official list of anti-BHO media-created fake controversies (as of 5/29/10):

1. Reverend Wright
2. William Ayers
3. Michelle LaVaughan's biceps
4. BHO's middle name
5. BHO's "long-form" birth certificate
6. BHO's African relatives
* * * *
234. Non-existent White House dress code
235. Joe Sestak legal non-paying job offer

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 29, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

In fairness the GOP congressmen pushing this story don't think it's only their base that's stupid.

The fact that they'd throw the story out there as a diversion after Rand Paul's really bad roll out campaign, shows a pretty low regard for the national press too.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

It still stands that you cannot cite a single precedent of the courts or anyone treating these incidents as a "high crime and misdemeanor" -- or as a violation of a federal statute.

Essentially this is a case where the White House intervened in a political primary to get their favored candidate -- a party-switching, unpopular incumbent -- a shot in the general election.

If anyone should be upset, it should be Democrats, not Republicans.

The offer was what? Assistant Secretary of Defense, or some other junior post that involved a pay-cut etc? Given Sestak's background he certainly would have been qualified; and most political posts by definition take political considerations into account (e.g. as rewards for loyal party members, or party backers).

Basically, the GOP congressmen who are pushing this as some big controversy, think you're stupid.

That's what this comes down to.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

It's rather entertaining to watch the Left's mantra become "all politicians are crooks" rather than admit they made a mistake.

Posted by: thebink | May 29, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Campaign Promise Dies:

It's a bit long, but do you remember?

http://www.truthout.org/the-unmaking-a-campaign-promise-obama-and-military-tribunals57493

Posted by: Tate | May 29, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama promises New way to run D.C. in 2008 campaign.

The Obama Administration repeatedly distorted the facts of a Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, that it used as a campaign issue in 2008. It also broke campaign promises in signing legislation related to that court ruling. That’s just one of many broken promises by Obama, such as his false claims that he would implement a “net spending cut” and not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

Posted by: Tate | May 29, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Way too many talking heads on both the left and the right have so far failed to grasp what I believe to be the true underlying reason for so much voter/taxpayer discontent. We're just fed-up with being lied too, spun at, and just generally disregarded as if we weren’t important until the next election season rolls around.

Had this been Geo. Bush the heads on the left would be screaming louder and more viciously then anything those on the right are doing to Obama now. Here we are almost three months after the original allegation by Sestak and we're supposed to believe that it took that long to carry out an "exhaustive" investigation in order to get the facts straight? How difficult could that be? President Obama asks Rahm Emanuel to talk to former President Clinton to talk to Admiral Sestak...end of investigation. If there was actually more to investigate then there’s still more to this story then we know about. Perhaps time was needed to come to some post-primary accord between Sestak and the White House vis-a-via support during the general election when Sestak will need all the support he can get. After all he is still a Democrat, and possible a more reliable one then that genetically traitorous Specter ever was.

We’re tired of these endless games designed to cover the politicians a**es. While the country polls right of center I think as a rule we’d be just as happy under a slightly left of center administration if we felt we weren’t being treated like ignorant know nothing children all the time. If the Obama Health Care legislation is so dam*n good why did Pelosi and crew have to pull so many shabby deals to get it done? Why all the dog and pony shows and hall of mirrors distractions? Why were so many of the long term costs not factored into the final legislation other than to directly effect the CBO’s calculations and to miss-direct the American public. This endless display of arrogance and disdain displayed by too many elected leaders on both sides of the aisles has gotten too old and transparent and a growing number of Americans are looking for a way to put an end to it. Peacefully if at all possible but if not by other means if eventually it’s necessary.

Posted by: Sproing | May 29, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Way too many talking heads on both the left and the right have so far failed to grasp what I believe to be the true underlying reason for so much voter/taxpayer discontent. We're just fed-up with being lied too, spun at, and just generally disregarded as if we weren’t important until the next election season rolls around.

Had this been Geo. Bush the heads on the left would be screaming louder and more viciously then anything those on the right are doing to Obama now. Here we are almost three months after the original allegation by Sestak and we're supposed to believe that it took that long to carry out an "exhaustive" investigation in order to get the facts straight? How difficult could that be? President Obama asks Rahm Emanuel to talk to former President Clinton to talk to Admiral Sestak...end of investigation. If there was actually more to investigate then there’s still more to this story then we know about. Perhaps time was needed to come to some post-primary accord between Sestak and the White House vis-a-via support during the general election when Sestak will need all the support he can get. After all he is still a Democrat, and possible a more reliable one then that genetically traitorous Specter ever was.

We’re tired of these endless games designed to cover the politicians a**es. While the country polls right of center I think as a rule we’d be just as happy under a slightly left of center administration if we felt we weren’t being treated like ignorant know nothing children all the time. If the Obama Health Care legislation is so dam*n good why did Pelosi and crew have to pull so many shabby deals to get it done? Why all the dog and pony shows and hall of mirrors distractions? Why were so many of the long term costs not factored into the final legislation other than to directly effect the CBO’s calculations and to miss-direct the American public. This endless display of arrogance and disdain displayed by too many elected leaders on both sides of the aisles has gotten too old and transparent and a growing number of Americans are looking for a way to put an end to it. Peacefully if at all possible but if not by other means if eventually it’s necessary.

Posted by: Sproing | May 29, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Way too many talking heads on both the left and the right have so far failed to grasp what I believe to be the true underlying reason for so much voter/taxpayer discontent. We're just fed-up with being lied too, spun at, and just generally disregarded as if we weren’t important until the next election season rolls around.

Had this been Geo. Bush the heads on the left would be screaming louder and more viciously then anything those on the right are doing to Obama now. Here we are almost three months after the original allegation by Sestak and we're supposed to believe that it took that long to carry out an "exhaustive" investigation in order to get the facts straight? How difficult could that be? President Obama asks Rahm Emanuel to talk to former President Clinton to talk to Admiral Sestak...end of investigation. If there was actually more to investigate then there’s still more to this story then we know about. Perhaps time was needed to come to some post-primary accord between Sestak and the White House vis-a-via support during the general election when Sestak will need all the support he can get. After all he is still a Democrat, and possible a more reliable one then that genetically traitorous Specter ever was.

We’re tired of these endless games designed to cover the politicians a**es. While the country polls right of center I think as a rule we’d be just as happy under a slightly left of center administration if we felt we weren’t being treated like ignorant know nothing children all the time. If the Obama Health Care legislation is so dam*n good why did Pelosi and crew have to pull so many shabby deals to get it done? Why all the dog and pony shows and hall of mirrors distractions? Why were so many of the long term costs not factored into the final legislation other than to directly effect the CBO’s calculations and to miss-direct the American public. This endless display of arrogance and disdain displayed by too many elected leaders on both sides of the aisles has gotten too old and transparent and a growing number of Americans are looking for a way to put an end to it. Peacefully if at all possible but if not by other means if eventually it’s necessary.

Posted by: Sproing | May 29, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

It's downright entertaining to watch Obama supporters switching to the "all politicians are crooks" mantra rather than admit they made a mistake.

Posted by: thebink | May 29, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

It's downright entertaining to watch Obama supporters switching to the "all politicians are crooks" mantra rather than admit they made a mistake.

Posted by: thebink | May 29, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

NEver really thought about it that way. It does make sense.

Lou
www.online-privacy.de.tc

Posted by: clermontpc | May 29, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Nobody believes this "unpaid, advisory job" lie.

This is the answer we expected "shortly"?

Dadgum, soetoro is corrupt!

Posted by: wmpowellfan | May 29, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

It's downright entertaining to watch Obama supporters switching to the "all politicians are crooks" mantra rather than admit they made a mistake.

Posted by: thebink | May 29, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

You woild have to be truly naive to have voted for a Chicago machine raised pol for President and expected change would be any different than what you are seeing!

BUYER REMORSE///

Posted by: PRRWRITER | May 29, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

some really lame excuses from the loyal lefties on here. Please spare us the twisted logic. No one buys it and everyone knows you will say anything to protect your guys no matter what.

Posted by: _buster | May 29, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The trail leads through Clinton to Rahm and Barak. The world of let's make a deal politics has become a manipulation of our government and our American way of life, neither of which these particular players care about except in what it can do for them. Federal prison for all traitors.

Posted by: sandiego1969 | May 29, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

The trail leads through Clinton to Rahm and Barak. The world of let's make a deal politics has become a manipulation of our government and our American way of life, neither of which these particular players care about except in what it can do for them. Federal prison for all traitors.

Posted by: sandiego1969 | May 29, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

The trail leads through Clinton to Rahm and Barak. The world of let's make a deal politics has become a manipulation of our government and our American way of life, neither of which these particular players care about except in what it can do for them. Federal prison for all traitors.

Posted by: sandiego1969 | May 29, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

There have been many instances in this administration and others that border on High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I do not defend the Bush administration any more than the current one. They all should be, and should have been, held accountable, however, Bush is no longer an issue even though the left wing wants to CLOUD the waters with references to the Bush administration.

This administration has, like no other in the history of the United States, gone out of their way to demonize every one of YOU, the US CITIZEN. So now when the US CITIZEN fights back, there is "wailing and gnashing of teeth".

And we also hear that it is "much ado about nothing".

Remember, however, as you listen to and read these deflections of the truth, it would not be the same if the Bush administration had been found complicit in the same shinanigans.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The only possible honest player in this entire saga is Sestak and only because of the fact he is a retired Navy Officer. The only action that has any chance of getting to the bottom of this matter is to get Sestak under oath and then question him as to the unvarnished specifics. Among Emanual, Obama and Clinton the TRUTH is impossible. Depends what the meaning of what "is" "is"? Spare us please.

Posted by: maryh4us | May 29, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

We know how the Sestak story bacame a big deal. The question is why? Much ado about nothing. Just more noise and noxious fumes from the right. Someone please pass the potato salad.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | May 29, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Cilliza!
This is reporting??
You show no interest in pursuing or being aggressive about this, even though there is plenty of "smoke" that speaks of "fire"..
If you didn't believe so implicitly in the goodness and morality of Obama, you would be more of a real journalist on this matter, instead of part of the SPIN CYCLE!

Posted by: johnL1 | May 29, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

We know how the Sestak story bacame a big deal. The question is why? Much ado about nothing. Just more noise and noxious fumes from the right. Someone please pass the potato salad.

Posted by: CopyKinetics | May 29, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican and I wished this story hurt Sestak, but I don't think it does... except to the extent that it hurts Obama and the entire corropt Democratic Party, thus Sestak 2nd or 3rd hand.

No one believes Clinton, now no one believes Gibbs or Obama.

Posted by: JBaustian | May 29, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I see many implications that "this happens all the time".

Produce the evidence and then when you do, produce the court case that supported or denied the evidence and found the defendents guilty or otherwise.

Looking for precident, I think, just maybe, we found it in the Obama administration.

Once again, so simple even a "Cave man can understand", let the court decide.


So.... how's that HOPE AND CHANGE working out for ya?

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Won't be long before the Hope a Dope loves start crying "RACISM" about this one, as is their wont. Is the doddering old fool "Hope a Dope" wanted to to be "your senator" 'till he was 86 black? It will seem so.

Posted by: DickTuck | May 29, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Simple facts if you accept what the White House has said.

An improper bribe was offered. It does not matter if a job had pay or not, it would have at the very least provided him with an office which has value. Ignoring the paid expenses associated with it or any intangibles, you already have enough for a bribe.

Now you also have Clinton and the Rhambo conspiring to make the bride so already we have enough to stick those two in jail. The only question left is who ask Rhambo to do it? If he acted along, which I doubt, he will be left in jail alone... Obama can't pardon him or he will completely seal his fate as a 1 term loser.

Posted by: Yirmin | May 29, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The Conservatives will treat this matter like a dog with a chicken bone and that is a good thing for this Nation. Eventually the pressure will build to have this investigated impartially. The Socialists only hope on this one is that the blame can be placed low enough to avoid harming the POTUS. Good luck on this one. At minimum they will have to throw the Jewish Ballet dancer under the bus. Too bad Rahm it looks like you will have to take the hit to protect the Marxist in charge.

Posted by: maryh4us | May 29, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

The Conservatives will treat this matter like a dog with a chicken bone and that is a good thing for this Nation. Eventually the pressure will build to have this investigated impartially. The Socialists only hope on this one is that the blame can be placed low enough to avoid harming the POTUS. Good luck on this one. At minimum they will have to throw the Jewish Ballet dancer under the bus. Too bad Rahm it looks like you will have to take the hit to protect the Marxist in charge.

Posted by: maryh4us | May 29, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”

Posted by: Tate | May 29, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Wow, when the rule of law is mentioned, boy does it hit some nerves.

So rather than tie up the courts and spend the US CITIZEN'S money on a true case of LAW, we should just spend our time paying congress to decide if there are enough womens bathrooms in public places.

Why are you afraid of the law?

Why is it so difficult to say, "let the courts decide"?

Well people, you can see here the strong left wing defense against the law, "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit"

Once again, no argument here, let the courts decide.

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Clinton was just following orders. Pres Bo knows.

Posted by: yokohlman | May 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

You are so shallow and naive to buy the
Obama story:Bill offered a silly advisory
position for a Representative to abandon a much greater position of power:US Senate--
so the turncoat Specter could keep his Senate seat as Obama's sychophant?

No way! Sestak was offered some
thing much much more important:a
czarship? Newt Gingrich has already
suggested the Clinton
offer was only the opening round to one or more much higher!

A reporter ought to be more inquisitive than you are,Chris! Start sniffing for more!!
bribes!!

Posted by: drgene1 | May 29, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The problem is not the White House's. The problem once again sits in the lap of (generally) the rightwing media who refuses to print the truth or to research a story to get to the truth.

Bottom line, the Stesek offer is no different than similar offers made in EVERY administration including Bush and yes, even the Reagan administration when Ed Rollins bragged about offering Sen. Hyakowa(sp?)an administration position if he would not run as senator from Hawaii.

The other problem is a lazy, ignorant consumer who refuses to fact check what they are told.

Posted by: utahmink | May 29, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The problem is not the White House's. The problem once again sits in the lap of (generally) the rightwing media who refuses to print the truth or to research a story to get to the truth.

Bottom line, the Stesek offer is no different than similar offers made in EVERY administration including Bush and yes, even the Reagan administration when Ed Rollins bragged about offering Sen. Hyakowa(sp?)an administration position if he would not run as senator from Hawaii.

The other problem is a lazy, ignorant consumer who refuses to fact check what they are told.

Posted by: utahmink | May 29, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

When Major Garret ask Obama Thursday WHAT IS THE STORY. BO would have just said, "Ryhm ask Bill to ask Him. I had nothing to do with it." WHICH WOULD BE A LIE TOO! But it would have came across much better than a Friday 3 day weekend LIE!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you're a Believer Get on your Knees. Ask GOD to forgive use for not staying awake. With GOD on our side how can we lose. We can't and we won't. Pray for the USA and what our Country means to the world. What every generation has done before ours to keep us free. PLEASE PRAY.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All Americans it's time to stand up and get 1 to 20 more to stand with you or none of us will be able to stand for long. We are still free to say what we want, but not if We all don't stand as one to say whatever you want even if I don't agree. Who will the next President be? Will you trust them to keep you free. It's the first two amendment the want. Not the 8th or the 14th, but the first two. WHY? Because without them You can't stay free. Pray!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It not the D or the R. It's AMERICA. Think of you Great Grandparents, think of your Great Grandchilderen. Will You do for them what yours did for you? Please open your mind and your eyes. It's all about power. It's not Obama or Bush. It's every one of them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Get on your knees thank GOD for all who have fought before YOU to keep YOU free to say whatever Dumb Damn thing you want to. Pray. Please pray for them and the ones who fight today and the ones who will fight tomorrow. If you're not strong get strong to stay strong. Pray and He will help you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by: Tate | May 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Too many t*rds in this punchbowl.

Posted by: Dutra1 | May 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

This is abuse of power from the highest political office in the land and all we get from the press is excuses. Journalism is DEAD.

Just how long did it take the White House to convince Clinton to take the fall. I guess it makes perfect since that the most deceitful administration asks the next biggest liar to do the dirty work.

Posted by: iamzbacku | May 29, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

My two cents worth is that Biden is going to retire "for health reasons" and then Hillary will be named in his place. This, I truly believe, is the reason Bill got involved in this whole matter.

Posted by: dandyandy | May 29, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The facts are, if one were to actually take the time to do studious research, is that, THIS does not happen all the time even though we are told it does.

I can remember no time, nor can I find a case similar, where individuals, so high up in an administration, were plainly complicit in such activities.

Now the fact that we are told that a law is 70 years old is supposed to make it less relevant. How old is the law, "thou shalt not kill"? Is it any less relevant?

Regardless of all the SMOKE AND MIRROR defense to the innocence of this administration, there is no argument here.

Produce valid evidence, in a court of law, that what is apparent to all but a blind man, is not true nor apparent.

“All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things.” Robert Southey

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Bush's legacy is something the Republicans want to run away from in the 2010 and 2012 elections. They want a fresh start? Main Street doesn't get a fresh start until our troops are home from both wars and the economy is fixed. The BP Gulf Oil Spill is a reminder of the Bush/Cheney Republican deregulation of the Oil Industry.

Democrats Courting all Independent and Obamacan voters with our very own online concert -

Bruce Springsteen - Waitin' On A Sunny Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiCxqhu9cio

Jessica Alba The Stare Response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmzcKXsllWs

Wayne Newton - Danke Schoen (Yes you heard it right! Democrats courting Wayne Newton right here!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUryeDLpY_c

Health Care Reform passed. The start of Wall Street Reform (More work is needed). Our Troops are already starting to return
home from Iraq. With the help of all our allies our troops including our allies will start drawing down in Afghanistan in
2011.

Republican Party: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised
when the cow drops dead."

We have a heart, Join us! Vote Democrat in 2010!”

Posted by: cooday | May 29, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

You keep asking yourselves why do the media protect obama. The mainstream media are associates of this administration.
Read up on the history of woodrow wilson.
Woodrow Wilson faced a similar dilemma: He had to change the minds of the people about World War I. He created the Committee on Public Information, using handpicked propaganda gurus George Creel along with Edward Bernays and the now-revered (but spookiest person ever) Walter Lippman.

Bernays was great — the Nazis' top propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, kept copies of Bernays writings in his own personal library. Creel sought to make "associates" out of the media and went on a mission to get all Americans to conform to the pro-war viewpoint.

Bernays in fact said, "It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."
Wilson set the table by passing the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Act in 1918. Those laws empowered government to suppress and punish "disloyalty and subversion" and ban all "seditious" materials from the mail. Seditious materials included anything that might "impugn the motives of the government."

Hiram Johnson, progressive senator from California, said of the law: "You shall not criticize anything or anybody in the government any longer or you shall go to jail."

Mainstream media are associates of the government.
Oh and Wilson was the president that created the federal reserve during Christmas time when most members of Congress went back to their home states.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 29, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

You keep asking yourselves why do the media protect obama. The mainstream media are associates of this administration.
Read up on the history of woodrow wilson.
Woodrow Wilson faced a similar dilemma: He had to change the minds of the people about World War I. He created the Committee on Public Information, using handpicked propaganda gurus George Creel along with Edward Bernays and the now-revered (but spookiest person ever) Walter Lippman.

Bernays was great — the Nazis' top propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, kept copies of Bernays writings in his own personal library. Creel sought to make "associates" out of the media and went on a mission to get all Americans to conform to the pro-war viewpoint.

Bernays in fact said, "It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."
Wilson set the table by passing the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Act in 1918. Those laws empowered government to suppress and punish "disloyalty and subversion" and ban all "seditious" materials from the mail. Seditious materials included anything that might "impugn the motives of the government."

Hiram Johnson, progressive senator from California, said of the law: "You shall not criticize anything or anybody in the government any longer or you shall go to jail."

Mainstream media are associates of the government.
Oh and Wilson was the president that created the federal reserve during Christmas time when most members of Congress went back to their home states.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 29, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

You say public relations failure, I say violation of Federal law...why does the post pander to Obama and his cronies rather than hold them accountable...this act is at least as offensive as Watergate.

Posted by: JCM-51 | May 29, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Now we have three very similar cases that establish a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. Sestak, the Colorado guy, and Blago.

This should be more than enough to open a fullscale investigation of all three. What actually happens, with this gov't in place will be determined by what they can get away with.

To those who say, do we really want Biden in charge, I say Yes. He would have to govern from the center and would be largely powerless. And his constant gaffes would be another reason to go to the polls on election day.

Posted by: _buster | May 29, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Hey! Washington post, who brags on taking Nixon down for a lot less... If this was a public relations blunder then Nixon’s Watergate was a Boy Scout meeting. I love you leftist press people. You're so predictable. Here we got a true Watergate one where a crime was really commited plus we have lying and deceit and you call it a public relations blunder. Maybe its time you turn your press credentials in and just admit you’re a stenographer for the left. Most Americans know it already. Your only support is from the useful idiot who hangs on your every word because they have no thought process.

Posted by: tri5 | May 29, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I'm liking this a lot. Due to the blundering of the Hope a Dope Shuck and Jive Minstrel Show chief string puller "Ram it", middle class folks now get their CHOICE of a Republican OR a conservative democrat for the Senate, neither of whom will do them any harm. Sestak, if fact seems to have a real adversion to Hopey Changey. "Ram it" must rue the day he got Bubba CLinton involved. Hey Rahm, your bus is here, but don't get ON, stand in front.

Posted by: DickTuck | May 29, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Hey! Washington post, who brags on taking Nixon down for a lot less... If this was a public relations blunder then Nixon’s Watergate was a Boy Scout meeting. I love you leftist press people. You're so predictable. Here we got a true Watergate one where a crime was really commited plus we have lying and deceit and you call it a public relations blunder. Maybe its time you turn your press credentials in and just admit you’re a stenographer for the left. Most Americans know it already. Your only support is from the useful idiot who hangs on your every word because they have no thought process.

Posted by: tri5 | May 29, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

icsjp2003,

Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600

The law is 70 years old and yet there has not been a single time when that law has been used to prosecute a case of this nature.

e.g. When Reagan offered an executive administration post to then Sen. S.I. Hayakawa of California in order to get him to drop out of the GOP primary, there was no prosecution.

In fact the only time on record where the law has been used is in the prosecution of a Nixon era political deal where one of Nixon's fundraisers said he could deliver an ambassadorship to a donor if they guy brought in a $100K donation. THAT is trading on public office.

In American Law precedent matters. This is something that you wingnuts don't seem to appreciate.

What is the PRECEDENT for prosecuting a case along these lines?

Even in the case of Don Evans there was no prosecution. He raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush's election to the presidency and then was selected as the Commerce Secretary. Even a much narrower reading of the law that you're saying we should apply, neither he nor W. were prosecuted or charged.

The reason for this is that there was no violation of the law (or any other law) based on any reasonable understanding of the law.

If you want to argue for the application of the law, show me the precedent for the application of the law.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

How sinister can it get when the President tries to influence deals for his former senate seat in IL, then does the same in CO and then again in PA and then "pins the tail on the donkey" by pointing the finger of blame at the formerly impeached President? First, he uses Bill with his gravitas so that the offer is hard to refuse, then Obama hides behind a figure that is no longer impeachable. This is the true identity of Obama. There is nothing ethical or moral about our President! How much more abuse will America tolerate?

Posted by: Proverb1 | May 29, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Joe Sestak's multiple remarks about a job offer sounded phony to me. He was hiding something or making a game of it. I wouldn't vote for anyone who acts so smug and dishonest while the law is being broken.

Posted by: jctgal | May 29, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Here we go, we are being told that "there is no real crime here". So we are all to just ignore the law concerning such activities.

Let the courts decide if there was a crime or not and let each individual read the law

"United States Code
Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600
Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity"

and decide for themselves.....

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.” Dwight David Eisenhower

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I haven't read all of the comments yet, but I've been wondering why Clinton would risk getting his hands dirty this way. It's a little unseemly for a former president to do such grunt work, isn't it? I would like to know what Clinton was promised in exchange for this little chore. Maybe he just can't help himself.

Posted by: dottiebrown1 | May 29, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

a totally bogus story. who in their right mind after months planning to run would just jump out for a non paying job. if people and the media dont see how bogus this white wash is need a wake up! of course the media will bite hook line and sinker and try to move on and hope it stays closed like the teleprompter wants. people our only hope too save some form of america is to shut this down by voting to stop it in novemeber. since 06 i have never seen a congress destroy a country for political gain as the democrats have done. it is a sad state america is in right now!

Posted by: carl6352 | May 29, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

LIARS, LIARS, PANTS ON FIRE! Just beyond the pale what these corrupt people are capable of doing.

Posted by: jctgal | May 29, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

This is an example par excellance of a media driven story. Everyone agrees that there is no real story of scandal or lawbreaking here. Even the WP editorial board says so this morning in the editorial. So why are they still obsessing over it? Why is Chris devoting his entire column to it? Because that is what the right wing wants them to do.

Trust me on this. The media are all obsessively sensitive to the charge of liberal bias. So in order to prove that they are not so inclined, they go overboard on every non-story like this one. They did the same on the ACORN story--another bogus story that the public dismissed. The same with the non-movement Tea Party movement. Ditto with every time SaraH Palin flatulates.

Look. The public doesn't care about this story. But the right does. And the name of the game for the media right now is that whatever the right wants let's give it to them. It makes them feel good. It makes them think they are relevant.

This story will ultimately end up along with the others as an interesting asides from the real stories going on and will be promptly forgotten. How many people out there even remember the names of the people involved in the ACORN story? How many yokels out there even know that the ACORN case was dismissed?

Look. You simply cannot take seriously anything the media put out these days because they are less interested in hard news than they are just this sort of trivial nonstory designed to titillate the right wing conspiracy mongers.

Posted by: jaxas70 | May 29, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!
Remember the Democrats cry when they falsely accuse Republicans of wrong doing? ....."It's not whether he is guilty or innocent, it's the seriousness of the charge." This is how corrupt they are, they use the media to indict innocent Republicans, but then, when they break the law, they use their appointees to stonewall their criminal acts. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Citizens must demand equal treatment under the law and accurate and unbiased news reporting.
When the Democrats say this offer to Joe Sestak is not a serious matter and that the Republicans did the same deal making is not true. The difference is that it is acceptable to ask candidates to not enter a race to protect another favored candidate, but the law does NOT allow there to be an offer of anything of value. Someone at the White House is guilty according to the testimony of Joe Sestak. Now, will justice be done?

Posted by: Proverb1 | May 29, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Proverb1
Well thought comments. however, I contend that, rather than just the Clinton Democrats, each US citizen has to ask themselves, "how much more abuse will I take before I stand up and say something about it?"

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I believe the Rob Blagojevich trial begins on June 3rd. Hey Rob, I know how fluid your speech is, please tell the nation about the White House deals you received to appoint their annointed one. Then lets move on to Colorado and Pennsylvania to close the deal on this corrupt, deceitful and opaque presidency.

Posted by: Proverb1 | May 29, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Sestak just come out and outline the whole thing as it really happened? From all appearances, he is not guilty of anything since he refused to take the offer, whatever it was. But he will be guilty if he continues to be silent. So what if he exposes Obama/Clinton/Emanuel, they are the ones who should be held accountable. This is like Watergate and Blago all wrapped up in one mess.

Posted by: willtaylor | May 29, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

How sinister can it get when the President tries to influence deals for his former senate seat in IL, then does the same in CO and then again in PA and then "pins the tail on the donkey" by pointing the finger of blame at the formerly impeached President? First, he uses Bill with his gravitas so that the offer is hard to refuse, then Obama hides behind a figure that is no longer impeachable. This is the true identity of Obama. There is nothing ethical or moral about our President! How much more abuse will the Clinton Demcrats take?

Posted by: Proverb1 | May 29, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Does anybody really believe this tripe?? Fool me once, shame on me...fool me twice, ???? Transparent...ha! Open government...ha! This is nothing short of typical Chicago-style politics and someone has to pay the price for this felony.

Posted by: manorje | May 29, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't Sestak just come out and give the full story? From all appearances he is not guilty of anything, he was the one offered 'something' but refused to take the bait. He may throw Obama/Clinton under the bus but they are the ones who created this mess. If he stays quiet, he becomes more at fault in the coverup if there is something wrong. Memories of Watergate, why do these morons learn something from history?

Posted by: willtaylor | May 29, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

If this happens all the time then the justice department should declare the Democrat party a criminal organization.

Posted by: Jebby1 | May 29, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

So, what do you think is an appropriate time period to wait before obama pays of hillary's campaign debts in exchange for bill coming forth as "the culprit" in this fiasco?

Posted by: walnutalley | May 29, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

So, what do you think is an appropriate time period to wait before obama pays of hillary's campaign debts in exchange for bill coming forth as "the culprit" in this fiasco?

Posted by: walnutalley | May 29, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

So, what do you think is an appropriate time period to wait before obama pays of hillary's campaign debts in exchange for bill coming forth as "the culprit" in this fiasco?

Posted by: walnutalley | May 29, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

this is MORE than enough

for cowardly dems to support

obama's impeachment

as the november elections approach.......

Posted by: ProCounsel | May 29, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

According to the white house, efforts were made in june and july 09....
yet sestak said he only spoke with clinton 1 time...
could it be the phone conversation went from june to july????
wonder if they took a potty break during this longgggggggggggg phone call?
what a bunch of liars...

Posted by: senatorgoofy | May 29, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

We either live by the rule of law or we die without it.

To say that this happens all the time is like saying, murder, burglary, speeding, illegal drug use and so on happens all the time. So does this mean that any of these are less illegal?

Quoted from one of the only real Journalists and Patriots left in the United States, Mark Levin.

***********
United States Code
Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600


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

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "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" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.

Last modified: April 13, 2006
**************

No excuses nor any other rhetoric from this administration is acceptable in light of the law.

Either we allow these people to trample the rule of law and our constitution or we don't! It is as simple as that.

Ask yourself this: do I get off of on a speeding ticket just because everyone else is speeding?

Posted by: icsjp2003 | May 29, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Amazing ... It looks like Obama's political throat is now under Bill Clinton's boot.

Posted by: Jebby1 | May 29, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!
Remember the Democrats cry when they falsely accuse Republicans of wrong doing? ....."It's not whether he is guilty or innocent, it's the seriousness of the charge." This is how corrupt they are, they use the media to indict innocent Republicans, but then, when they break the law, they use their appointees such to stonewall their criminal acts. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Citizens must demand equal treatment under the law and accurate and unbiased news reporting.
When the Democrats say this offer to Joe Sestak is not a serious matter and that the Republicans did the same deal making is not true. The difference is that it is acceptable to ask candidates to not enter a race to protect another favored candidate, but the law does NOT allow there to be an offer of anything of value. Someone at the White House is guilty according to the testimony of Joe Sestak. Now, will justice be done?

Posted by: Proverb1 | May 29, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

The whole episode reaks of not only a cover up but clearly shows that this administration will do whatever it takes to cover it's tracks and put the blaame elsewhere. The political system has been corrupted for quite some time and I'm sure these types of deals are made all the time; the problem is that this one was brought to light by a slip of the tongue. So, now the guys who made the deal need to be held accountable. Too bad it's not going to happen, again, the media will give them a pass.

Posted by: jimtoledo | May 29, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Oceanfront property in Arizona--If you really believe, Chris, that Sestak was offered an "unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board," then you're the dumbest hick east of the Miss'sippi, as that lyin' weasel Clinton would say.

Congratulations, you suckers who voted for Obama. This is what you get when you put pathological liars in office. Except we *all* have to suffer.

Posted by: ulyssesmsu | May 29, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Oceanfront property in Arizona--If you really believe, Chris, that Sestak was offered an "unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board," then you're the dumbest hick east of the Miss'sippi, as that lyin' weasel Clinton would say.

Congratulations, you suckers who voted for Obama. This is what you get when you put pathological liars in office. Except we *all* have to suffer.

Posted by: ulyssesmsu | May 29, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure this comes as a surprise to some naive Americans who think the system hasn't been completely corrupted by special interests. The government's inability to prevent or prosecute those responsible for Enron, Tyco, the Financial Crisis, the invasion of Iraq, and leaking of a CIA Agent's identity, or the bribery of politicians with campaign dollars. A big news story would be the government acting properly. Acting improperly is an every day occurrence for them.

Posted by: JustSayNoToOil | May 29, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I still think we need an investigation. Do not trust Obama and Bill Clinton. I voted for Obama but I made a big mistake. Not only Republicans must continue pressing for an investigation but all Americans. This is a big deal. Do not trust this government. We need an investigation. There is something fishy here. DO NOT TRUST CLINTON AND OBAMA.

Posted by: post2009 | May 29, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Incompetent, dishonest, secretive and corrupt, our Oval Office Mac Daddy is a confidence killer and is the reason why stocks are receiving discount valuations in spite of burgeoning earnings.

Posted by: HANK2 | May 29, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

So we are supposed to believe that Bubba offered Sestak a job, without pay, that he is not even eligible for? No member of congress or the federal government can serve on this committee. They advisors on this committee come from academia. They should have come up with something better than this after all this time. Idiots.

Posted by: nickelflipper | May 29, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

To those who say this is a non-issue:

1. The Blagoiovich is extremely similar with the same players involved.
2. The Colorado case is extremely simliar with the same players involved.
3. We have an Attorney General who turns a blind eye toward voter intimidation (Black Panthers) and refuses to appoint a special council for ANY reports of wrong doing by this administration.

One Congressman said it best "We are just one election away from not having elections". It is time for Congress to do their jobs and end the corruption. If there is nothing to hide then a special council should not be a problem.

Posted by: AVeteran | May 29, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Sestak, are you really willing to cover up this crime? What will the voters of PA think when you continue to dodge for the President?
Mr. Sestak, by remaining silent, aren't you showing yourself as corrupt as the one you're giving cover for?
Mr. Sestak, do you really think the voters of PA will simply give a wink and a nod to your silence?
Mr. Sestak, we know that you say "it's not important" for you to speak on this matter by answering the questions, and that you only want to "concentrate on serving fellow Pennsylvanians," but don't you know that corrupt public servants are no servants at all? You're simply serving your own self-interests Mr. Sestak, like Mr. Arlen Specter did, remember? I remember your campaign add that even said as much of Mr. Specter.
Mr. Sestak, I and others will be sure to post these kinds of letters in all the newspapers in PA, and all bulletin boards on the internet, and all PA town halls, and all PA post offices, and PA gatherings of every stripe!
Mr. Sestak, you can only remain quiet so long! The truth will come out. Should you continue to hide that truth, letters like these will become legion!
Where's Joe…? What about the story Joe…? Why so evasive Joe…? Who's keeping you quiet Joe…? How's that campaign going Joe…? Hey Rahm your statement is nowhere to be found clown…! Why the Silence!? What's up Rahm…?

Posted by: mickrussom | May 29, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

The White House looks like the pathological liar from SNL -- yeah, that's the ticket, yeah.

LIAR! LIAR!

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 29, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Sestak was offered a juicy job by Emanuel as an inducement to get out.

Emanuel didn't act on his own, he talked it over with Obama and got the O.K.

Sestak shot his mouth off without thinking it through.

The White House stalled until they could line up a fall guy - Clinton - and get a plausible lie straight.

Does anyone really believe otherwise?

Posted by: drjcarlucci | May 29, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Sick of Obama corruption? This podcast will make you feel better: www.cashbeechcroft.podomatic.com

From a rising superstar in the conservative movement.

Posted by: Roger9 | May 29, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Ssetak was offered a juicy job by Emanuel as an inducement to get out.

Emanuel didn't act on his own, he talked it over with Obama and got the O.K.

Sestak shot his mouth off without thinking it through.

The White House stalled until they could line up a fall guy - Clinton - and get a plausible lie straight.

Does anyone really believe otherwise?

Posted by: drjcarlucci | May 29, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Willy-Jeff in the thick of it? Wow!
Well, to paraphrase Willys pal Carville: "You never can tell who will turn up when you drag a photo op thru the trailer park!"
I'm amazed the Hillary didn't insert herself into the fray, screaming that the rich don't pay their fair tshare.....excepting she and Willy-Jeff!

Posted by: erodrik | May 29, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

..and they actually pay this Ilizzzzzzza tool for this type of "journalistic drivel???"...of course..anyone who is a "guest" on MSNBC is a bought and paid for tool...since when does a JOB = an unpaid position on an advisory board they never identified..if it even exists..and if this is all it is..why did it take 4 months to come clean..and if this is all it is..why couldn't the "anointed one" simple say so when asked at his PC the other day....the answer to all is obvious..they got caught and it took them 4 months to get Willy on board..wonder how many hookers he got for taking the fall???...hey IZZZZZZZZZZA...why don't you go be a real journalist and find out who paid for Barry's education...wonder how you can ge the head of the Law Review..and there are ZERO writings from the man??...welcome to the "Chicago on the Potomac?.....

Posted by: wiheke | May 29, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Willy-Jeff in the thick of it? Wow! Well, to paraphrase Willys pal Carville: "You never can tell who will turn up when you drag a photo op thru the trailer park!"
I'm amazed the Hillary didn't insert herself ito the fray, scraeming tha the rich don't pay their fair share.....excepting she and Willy-Jeff!

Posted by: erodrik | May 29, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Willy-Jeff in the thick of it? Wow! Well, to paraphrase Willys pl Carville: "You never can tell who will turn up when you drag a photo op thru the trailer park!"
I'm amazed the Hillary didn't insert herself ito the fray, scraeming tha the rich don't pay their fair share.....excepting she and Willy-Jeff!

Posted by: erodrik | May 29, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Utter corruption.

Posted by: catman3 | May 29, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't someone ask Sestak if Clinton or anyone else from the administration offered him any other position? Why doesn't someone ask Sestak to deny that anyone offered him Secretary of Navy? When he was asked previously, he said "no comment." Sestak referred to "discussions" and "options" that were offered, plural, not one discussion, one offer. I guess questions like that would require an independent, objective media that did not spend all its time and energy pushing a liberal agenda.

Posted by: mbs235 | May 29, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes the White House did not offer a job to Sestak is an idiot. What probably happened is that Obama is too stupid to understand how the law works in this situation and Emanual did it.

Posted by: jumary | May 29, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone really believe that such an insignificant position would be offered to a retired 3-star Congresscritter that they were hoping to bow out of a Senate race? An important cabinet job, an Ambassadorship - maybe! But certainly not a do nothing job with no future, like that being reported. If Sestak doesn't correct this fabrication post haste, he will need to be reminded of the pledge he took upon entering the Academy - not to lie, cheat or steal or tolerate anyone who does.

Posted by: waltwelton | May 29, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"Change you can believe in?"
NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!

Posted by: thecannula | May 29, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

With white-washed op/ed commentary like this, it's no wonder why the Washington Post is headed for non-profit, charity status. Maybe Chris should join Chrissy Matthews of MSNBC.

Posted by: Yankee_Skeptic | May 29, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

This story only shows that the press don't get it either. This has been brewing for months and it hasn't even been mentioned by any other news outlet than the usual tellers of truth, talk radio and Fox News. Even now at this late stage, this paper is papering over the time involved by saying that the White House didn't want to make a rash statement and then be blamed for that. They needed time to assess? Hey, how hard is it? Even if this story is true, who if authorized Clinton, and what was the offer? This has been going on for months guys. Obviously a Special Prosecutor is needed. Short of that, how about the State Attorney General? Of course, when Holder stonewalls, the silence from the press will be deafening. One other thing we should be demanding of those we elect in November 2010 thru 2012 is that when control of our country is restored, hearings should be held in regards to the enjoining of forces between the political and the press. Talk about sedition!!!

Posted by: kevintheelder | May 29, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

This story only shows that the press don't get it either. This has been brewing for months and it hasn't even been mentioned by any other news outlet than the usual tellers of truth, talk radio and Fox News. Even now at this late stage, this paper is papering over the time involved by saying that the White House didn't want to make a rash statement and then be blamed for that. They needed time to assess? Hey, how hard is it? Even if this story is true, who if authorized Clinton, and what was the offer? This has been going on for months guys. Obviously a Special Prosecutor is needed. Short of that, how about the State Attorney General? Of course, when Holder stonewalls, the silence from the press will be deafening. One other thing we should be demanding of those we elect in November 2010 thru 2012 is that when control of our country is restored, hearings should be held in regards to the enjoining of forces between the political and the press. Talk about sedition!!!

Posted by: kevintheelder | May 29, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

It becomes important because bribing a candidate is illegal...a felony...so that's WHY Rahm ran away to Israel...and now they buffer with Bubba. Obama is a felon...and that's impeachable and he can be arrested and tried. The WH admitted the crime. The FBI either does it job or destroys itself for all time.

Posted by: Patriot_Eagle | May 29, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who buys this story should be culled from the nation's gene pool.

Posted by: lcary | May 29, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The Fall of Communism here and in Europe is close...you can smell the FELONY burning Obie out of the Whitehouse.

The OIL SPILL-in-Chief suffers Pinnochios'
DISEASE...every time Obie lies, he pukes OIL SPILL...all over America's ENERGY GRID...all over our soon to be sickened children...I will enjoy their impeachments and arrest. NOV2 is the VOTE of your lifetime.

Posted by: Patriot_Eagle | May 29, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

The Fall of Communism here and in Europe is close...you can smell the FELONY burning Obie out of the Whitehouse.

The OIL SPILL-in-Chief suffers Pinnochios'
DISEASE...every time Obie lies, he pukes OIL SPILL...all over America's ENERGY GRID...I will enjoy their impeachments and arrest. NOV2 is the VOTE of your lifetime.

Posted by: Patriot_Eagle | May 29, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

the decline and fall of the obama regime
saturday, may 29, 2010

1. the obama regime in panic mode to stop impeachment inquiries over its sestak bribe to abandon the dem nomination for senate in pensylvania. typical document information dump friday afternoon(yesterday) in frantic regime hope hung over reporters will forget this matter over the memorial weekend and the matter dropped due to lack of media oxygen.

the regime’s story now is former president bill clinton was selected by rahm to inquire of a federal position for sestak if sestak would drop out of the race.

this is now the alibi after bill clinton’s visit to white house this week denying any coordination of coverup with white house counsel. the regime contends this was not a ”job” but just an unpaid presidential “board” offer.

legal beagles all say either way obama is impeachable.

obama regime selected bill clinton perhaps because even his foes admit he is “an unusually good liar”.

surprisingly many dems privately backing impeachment probe as widespread dem dissatisfaction with obama regime as november
elections look ominous for cowardly dems.

obama regime fails to recognize its jeopardy in entrusting its future to bill and hillary

who make even brutus look loyal..................

2. obama regime fulfills its narcissistic profile by ignoring the oil spill until james carville a dem operative from louisiana , attacks the regime in the chicago way. see, there is some good even in the worst among us........

america say narcissist obama in oil spill and was disgusted.

3. war appears imminent between israel and iran (through its surrogates syria, hamas and hezbollah). syria deploys missiles targeting israel to hamas and hezbollah.

in a widely ignored article in the london sunday times in April 2010, israel warned the world that missile attacks from hamas and hezbollah would ignite a response against syria.

christian fundamentalists in the united states (who believe the bible is true, including the prophecies, and study the bible individually every day and in church on sunday) note an israeli atttack on damascus syria is foretold in isaiah 17 and the description is consistent with a nuclear neutron bomb (although not explicitly stated in the text). also they have smoldering anger over obama dissing (slang for disrespecting) israeli prime minister netanyahu in his last visit and are carefully observing obama this week on tuesday israeli visit.

4. opposition to dems in november is wildly exceeding all expectations.......much optimism and sense of deliverance from the boot of the obama regime on americas neck as november approaches.

Posted by: ProCounsel | May 29, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I don't know which is more disappointing.

This is the best they could do?? After 4 months of effort, slick Willie made an offer of an unpaid advisory spot??

Or

That they actually had to turn to slick Willie. With all the thugs available to them, they rely on Clinton, the former impeached liar-and-chief.

or

That they, at any level, expect the folks to believe this crap.

Sad gentlemen, very sad.

Posted by: whkeller | May 29, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Rat vermin corrupted Boss Tweed-Obama and his corrupted Tammany Hall regime exposed.
Otraitor is a man-child emperor with no clothes. He is a rat vermin traitor with a plummeting popularity rating because he hates America, hates freedom and hates liberty. He works for Goldman Sachs along with Dodd and Frank. He supports expanded wars - but is Soros funded Code Pink and media matters are silent for this baby-dictator Obama, he is weak and the world is destabilizing, he is an oligarchical colloquists and rules our population with an iron fist in a police state with a velvet glove, but he coddles terrorists, Iran, MS13, Mexican Narco-State Drug Czars. He cracks down on the middle class - the law abiding tax paying whom he considers subjects in his regime. His IRS has audited at a rate 300% above normal. His census is a Nazi-like info-gathering attempt. He has outspent all previous presidents in one year. He is big brother, he is a traitor and he is a little man child moron figurehead empty suit that acts childish and thin skinned because he is uneducated. Sure he was indoctrinated with progressive trash, but given what he says and thinks he is a stupid uneducated failure of a man that could not hunt, grow food for himself, even change his tire. He knows nothing of math, history, physics or chemistry, his ideas are idiot Alinsky eructations, his speech capabilities without a teleprompter is pathetic and he is one of the stupidest people to ever grace the Office of the President.
And this moron man child Otraitor looks like the thin skinned loser. He is a disgusting man and a communist rat that will rot in hell.
This Obama regime is the modern Boss Tweed Tammany Hall. The depraved nature of the Democrat party and its hidden progressive-marxist agenda has been a cancer on America for 100 years now, and today, the main stream media is controlled by the progressives so we don't Thomas Nast drawings exposing what this rat vermin Obama is doing.

Posted by: mickrussom | May 29, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

So the spin now is that this happens all the time, yet the only example that is being pushed by the MSM and the few remaining kool-aid drinkers is a 1970 offer made by GOVENOR Reagan. I could not tell you why nothing major was made at that time but 1970 was a completely different time and culture. Having said that I find the comments to this and every controversy that this WH has includes words to the effect that it is Bush’s fault. Just how long do they think they can play that tune? I mean come on people even Clinton who could not bear to let a news item go by without telling the world how he would solve it better and faster and cheaper , didn't go on and on blaming all his problems on the guy that had the chair before him. It is really a poor way of dealing with an issue. After all President Bush has enough couth (sp) to keep his mouth shut as was always the rule before Bill.

But I would be careful of what you ask for because Joe would be more of the same at least. We have no one to blame but ourselves for letting this man get elected. This is the result of years and years of our children being taught who knows what in school about what the founding fathers expected of the citizens. They also are taught little to no actual history, and the history they do get taught is revised to fit the whims of the left.
It is time to bring our country back to what the people that founded it, many of gave their lives for this country, expected. As a start it would be nice if it was mandatory that the Constitution, including all amendments is taught off a common workbook throughout the country.
We are going to lose this country if we don't get off our duffs and do the small things and the big things it is going to take. It is a sad state of affairs when a fairly large number of so called Americans want to see America fail so that we get "put in our place" so to speak. Let me just say this if that day ever comes you better hope you have some place to hide because if this country goes down so goes the world. We do more good for the world that every other country combined. That’s a fact, do your research. Along the way we do make mistakes, but that’s what they are. How about instead of putting your energy into gleefully seeing the country get a black eye, how about putting your energy into cleaning up a section of your street and getting your neighbors to join in? Hey it worked in Ney York City.

This current affair will blow over and another one will take its place. It's gotcha politics now and unless and until we get the mindset in Washington and across America changed it will go on and on and on until it blows up.

Remember in November

Posted by: stephencoss | May 29, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

January 20, 2013

Posted by: GregJolysGhost | May 29, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Ron's trial! He has got some great pics or something that is going to bring down this admistration! This is Chicago style politics that not going to work for the USA! GO RON!!!

Posted by: LivingSmallInNYC | May 29, 2010 7:20 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Ron's trial! He has got some great pics or something that is going to bring down this admistration! This is Chicago style politics that not going to work for the USA! GO RON!!!

Posted by: LivingSmallInNYC | May 29, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for Ron's trial! He has got some great pics or something that is going to bring down this admistration! This is Chicago style politics that not going to work for the USA! GO RON!!!

Posted by: LivingSmallInNYC | May 29, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

"the White House made a good choice in choosing a disbarred, impeached liar as their front man."

Posted by: USMC_Mike | May 29, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

I am sure many such behind-the-door deals goes on all the time, but Obama was the one that went all around the country and said he would be different, that he would clean up the cess pool...he is no better than any of them, and those from Chicago are the worst!

I still will never take my eye off the fact that right now, the taxpayers are being raped each and everyday...and now to help union pensions!!!

Posted by: dareisay | May 29, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

I am sure many such behind-the-door deals goes on all the time, but Obama was the one that went all around the country and said he would be different, that he would clean up the cess pool...he is no better than any of them, and those from Chicago are the worst!

I still will never take my eye off the fact that right now, the taxpayers are being raped each and everyday...and now to help union pensions!!!

Posted by: dareisay | May 29, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

I am sure many such behind-the-door deals goes on all the time, but Obama was the one that went all around the country and said he would be different, that he would clean up the cess pool...he is no better than any of them, and those from Chicago are the worst!

I still will never take my eye off the fact that right now, the taxpayers are being raped each and everyday...and now to help union pensions!!!

Posted by: dareisay | May 29, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Bill Clinton offered to SAY that it was him that approached Sestak with the offer because he is not an official member of the Obama administration and it puts distance between the unsavory deal and the big O. And I don't read too many people taking note that Sestak has shut up about the whole thing now - could it be that it was whispered to him that now that he has the nomination, if he wants the Democratic machine behind him, he better play along? No, demi-god O wouldn't twist arms like that anywhere but in Chicago, would he?

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | May 29, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Bill Clinton offered to SAY that it was him that approached Sestak with the offer because he is not an official member of the Obama administration and it puts distance between the unsavory deal and the big O. And I don't read too many people taking note that Sestak has shut up about the whole thing now - could it be that it was whispered to him that now that he has the nomination, if he wants the Democratic machine behind him, he better play along? No, demi-god O wouldn't twist arms like that anywhere but in Chicago, would he?

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | May 29, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Bill Clinton offered to SAY that it was him that approached Sestak with the offer because he is not an official member of the Obama administration and it puts distance between the unsavory deal and the big O. And I don't read too many people taking note that Sestak has shut up about the whole thing now - could it be that it was whispered to him that now that he has the nomination, if he wants the Democratic machine behind him, he better play along? No, demi-god O wouldn't twist arms like that anywhere but in Chicago, would he?

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | May 29, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

So a sitting lier and his lier chief of staff get a impeached lier to lie about the offer being "uncompensated". That is what we must draw from this story.

Also, there will be no investigation... only this trumped up internal one.

6 months until we can kick them out.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | May 29, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

So a sitting lier and his lier chief of staff get a impeached lier to lie about the offer being "uncompensated". That is what we must draw from this story.

Also, there will be no investigation... only this trumped up internal one.

6 months until we can kick them out.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | May 29, 2010 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Chris Codzilla: Keep trying your hardest to obey your state-controlled MSM masters to make this illegal and dirty dealing Chicago-style politics sound harmless, business-as-usual and "everybody does it, let's move along".

WRONG. Illegal behavior that goes beyond Nixonian Watergate antics. High crimes were committed by a sitting president, his top (and known dirty dealing) aid and a former (and known shady dealing) president. Where is the press outrage and demands for full investigations?? Instead, we get these vain and transparent efforts by the MSM to excuse, gloss over and cover for the crimes of this administration.

Disgusting. We will not stand by silently.

Posted by: gozerzuul | May 29, 2010 6:03 AM | Report abuse

Who is "The Media" ?


And Will there be an Independent Council to Investigate this Crime?

I think Hillary should be the Independent Council, this way she can get rid of Bill & Obama at the same time.

Posted by: russatethehomework | May 29, 2010 5:41 AM | Report abuse

Ronald Reagan offered S.I. Haiwakawa (spelling) a job too. Dont hear anybody talking about that? But then the party of hippocreeps would not like to dig up King Ronnie and impeach him.

Posted by: waawaazaire | May 29, 2010 5:05 AM | Report abuse

Listen Up... Regardless of who did what... Do the Crime = Pay the Time... it's time to anti up! PERIOD. It looks extremely like a small time idea blossomed to world wide criteria. It's about time! They got caught. Let this turn out to be a lesson well learned, and thereby limiting future crimes of this nature.

Posted by: mikedailing | May 29, 2010 4:12 AM | Report abuse

Bush's legacy is something the Republicans want to run away from in the 2010 and 2012 elections. They want a fresh start? Main Street doesn't get a fresh start until our troops are home from both wars and the economy is fixed. The BP Gulf Oil Spill is a reminder of the Bush/Cheney Republican deregulation of the Oil Industry.

Democrats Courting all Independent and Obamacan voters with our very own online concert -

Bruce Springsteen - Waitin' On A Sunny Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiCxqhu9cio

Jessica Alba The Stare Response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmzcKXsllWs

Wayne Newton - Danke Schoen (Yes you heard it right! Democrats courting Wayne Newton right here!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUryeDLpY_c

Posted by: cooday | May 29, 2010 3:58 AM | Report abuse

A tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: jwquist | May 29, 2010 3:28 AM | Report abuse

So, who believes the "official version" of these scoundrels? Bill Clinton hands out a press release and the Press retypes it and rushes it to the presses? Are those days finally gone? I doubt it. This is Bill throwing himself into the breach. After all, one cannot impeach him again, right? They give medals for this kind of political heroism. Go ahead, swallow it all.

Posted by: CHR2 | May 29, 2010 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Much ado about nothing. The media constantly needs new stories and they could not find anything better.

Posted by: simon7382 | May 29, 2010 2:59 AM | Report abuse

JoeT1 = " It's lawful, ethical, and just plain politically smart."

You got 2 out of three wrong. It is quite illegal. A minimum of 2 laws were broken. Since it was democrats, you can argue that it was ethical even though it is not, but it is politically smart if you don't get caught. They got caught. Ahh, the good old "All the kids are doing it" defense. Maybe it it time for some Change. Let's Hope it starts here.

Posted by: WhyMe3 | May 29, 2010 2:50 AM | Report abuse

The bigger story that seems to be lost in the jumble is the law is clear.. it says it's illegal to "promise any position, compensation... appointment... to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity... or in connection with any primary election... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or both."
So today the White House admitted they did just that. It doesn't matter if it was a paid position or not... Clinton and/or Rahm violated this law. End of story.
http://www.Megatudes.com
The Anti Obama SuperStore

Posted by: FRedStatescom | May 29, 2010 2:41 AM | Report abuse

This is another reason why politicians should only get one term in office. They won't be there long enough to acquire any residual power during or after they leave office.

Posted by: davidj6 | May 29, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

They are just Democrats doing what Democrats do. Would you hire a special prosecutor to investigate a fox accused of killing a chicken? However, with Bill Clinton being involved we could get at least two years of entertainment out of it and we might even learn what the meaning of "is" is. However, White House council says that what they did was OK so I guess that is that. Anyone want to go Waterboarding?

Posted by: WhyMe3 | May 29, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse

You know what a gift the Dems provided... "A Two for One" conviction of both Obama and Clinton in one fell swoop. Of coarse, we're talking about "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton. Who has zero credibility. Now Obama, "The most transparent Administration in our history".

Prediction:
There is SO many strings to pull on and the "NEW" media (because the Lame stream is "out to lunch" Will be all over this story like Killer Whales on a newborn pup Seal...

Finally, the people will see that the l'il emperor lost his clothes...


Best scenario:

This could potentially be like bowling a perfect strike. This could drag in the Clinton's, Rahm Emanuel, Sestak, Blogo, Bauer, Gibbs, and Axelrod...

The View:

Several juices on ice along with lots of popcorn, Kick back and hit the TIVO! Now its Barry's turn to sweat...

With all these screwed up things going on I just want to know "Who Barry really pissed off"

Posted by: ElOregonian | May 29, 2010 2:17 AM | Report abuse

So... Bill (I did not have sex with that woman) Clinton says he did it? Look up "liar" in the dictionary, you will find a picture of Clinton.

A Democrat Lies about his military service (Blumenthal), sells his vote (Stupak), has an extramarital affair (Clinton), cheats on his taxes (Rangle), accepts bribes (Jefferson), sells a Senate seat (Jackson), backs underage sex-trafficking (Cleaver), lives with a pimp (Frank), lies about racism (Carnahan), and on and on and on...

THEY ARE DEMOCRATS and IT IS EXPECTED OF THEM! They have no morals, there is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, kill your baby, push global warming, embrace illegals, tax everything. Bigger government is the answer, THE MOST CORRUPT DEMOCRAT IS THE MOST EXALTED.

YOU LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE GOT TO BE THE STUPIDEST MORONS EVER!

Calderon: Jour Contree Reeely Socks...
http://usataxpayer.org/?0026368452

Private Pay Plummets, Government Handouts Soar...
http://usataxpayer.org/?0037479012

Posted by: fantum | May 29, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

There are a lot of comments here so I don't know if this has been suggested, but while this is investigated, someone should check to see if Hillary's outstanding campaign debt is paid off. Bill Clinton is not such an idealogue that he would fall on a sword for Obama without getting something out of it. Any way you look at it it reeks and needs to be exposed.

Posted by: mzigler | May 29, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse


We need an INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR RIGHT NOW

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 29, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse

How many of you gullible people actually believe this fabrication?

Posted by: ac7880

How many people approved of W's job performance in 2008?

There's your answer.

Posted by: JPRS | May 29, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

New strategy at White House; Skip Bush, Blame Clinton. Go play golf. Keep going down the blame line to Nixon.

Posted by: StopWaste | May 29, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Rahm Emanuel + Bill Clinton + Chicago politics drug into Washington with a host of characters = SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 29, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

"Hypocrites... I'm a right wing radical constitutionalist and a republican and I love "brests" (giggle, giggle)

Posted by: Choo_Choo_Mama | May 29, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

This is just another outrageous event from this WH. To think they will stonewall and sweep this under the rug is a felony against the American People. I am freaking out at this leadership more each day. 2010 is the real REVOLUTION come November.

Posted by: RepublicRocker | May 29, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

There IS a cancer on this presidency!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | May 29, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

How many of you gullible people actually believe this fabrication?

Posted by: ac7880 | May 29, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Wow..... bringing in one of only two presidents ever to be impeached in our country's history to be part of this sleazy cover up. Brilliant PR move guys. Chris, you're just whistling past the graveyard buddy if you think this was just a tiny little misunderstanding. This thing is about ready to go nuclear and I predict it will win the Pulitzer for someone like the National Enquirer or Breitbart or WND or some other "non-traditional" news outlet you look down your nose at who has the cajones to dig deep and find the truth.

Posted by: TexasRick | May 29, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Aaaahhhhh.... change we can believe in.

Posted by: crismahn | May 29, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Wow, brings a whole new dynamic to the old " dog ate my homework", now doesn't it? Bill, like Armando's stiletto, you deliver. The only thing better would be a cigar scenario to seal the deal. Intriguing, never saw you as a fall on your sword kinda dude. Thanks bubbster, see you in November.

Posted by: covelomax | May 29, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Gee Chris, you're probably right. If Obama would have known he'd done nothing wrong he would have been open, and honest by answering questions about Sestak right away. Obama's supporters should be asking why he would have the same suspicions about his administration that his detractors do.

Posted by: rpatoh | May 29, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Gee Chris, you're probably right. If Obama would have known he'd done nothing wrong he would have been open, and honest by answering questions about Sestak right away. Obama's supporters should be asking why he would have the same suspicions about his administration that his detractors do.

Posted by: rpatoh | May 29, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

DO YOU REALLY EXPECT HONESTY FROM A DEMOCRAT?

A Democrat Lies about his military service (Blumenthal), sells his vote (Stupak), has an extramarital affair (Clinton), cheats on his taxes (Rangle), accepts bribes (Jefferson), sells a Senate seat (Jackson), backs underage sex-trafficking (Cleaver), lives with a pimp (Frank), lies about racism (Carnahan), and on and on and on...

THEY ARE DEMOCRATS and IT IS EXPECTED OF THEM! They have no morals, there is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, kill your baby, push global warming, embrace illegals, tax everything. Bigger government is the answer, THE MOST CORRUPT DEMOCRAT IS THE MOST EXALTED.

YOU LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE GOT TO BE THE STUPIDEST MORONS EVER!

Posted by: fantum | May 29, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

This will be very interesting to watch. If Americans buy into this, they will confirm that they have the intelligence of a turnip.

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 29, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I do believe that todays Democrats would have insisted Nixon complete his second term.

Posted by: rpatoh | May 29, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

It's amusing that Pres Obama is using former Pres Clinton as an alibi. Because it makes everybody sure about one thing. We may not know what law was broken, and we may not know to what extent the law was broken, but we know for sure that if Bill Clinton is involved, some law was broken.

Pres Obama using Clinton as a character reference is like a mafioso using Al Capone. It only makes sense if you're part of that gang.

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 29, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Living in Obamabad: In the gales of November 2010, support no moderate and vote for no Democrat.

Posted by: maryckk | May 29, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Since when is a bribe a "small thing"? Of course the current administration will slither right through this, though. So I don't even want to hear about it. Why care when NOTHING will come of it? They'll get away with whatever the hell they want. There's no real justice to be had here.

Posted by: sgizmo | May 29, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, mr. Chris Cillizza is having a hard time reconciling with the concept that this is exactly the sort of thing -- this skeevy political manipulation which he's trying his damnedest to "play off" in most transparently partisan fashion, shoehorning disingenuous terms like "small things" into the spooned-out desperate attempt to whitewash and run interference; how sickening and predictable is the soft-shoe around plain-speak and the truth -- this is exactly the sort of thing the hacks in the mainstream media are expected and obliged to actually report and investigate.

Chris Cillizza doesn't like the concept of objective hard-bitten reporting when it comes to the Democrats, though. Investigation and scrutiny are only palatable to he and his contemporaries when there's a Republican administration. For the Democrats, his type works very hard to come up with "camouflage" that maybe a few liberal readers -- who WANT to believe him -- will fall for.

He doesn't want to bear down on it with any real "journalistic gusto."

Well -- tough you-know-whatty. If no likey, then find another line of work; maybe shilling over at DailyKos or some other liberal loony-bin blog site. Come to think of it, many of the partisan hacks in the mainstream media would have done America a huge service had they long ago found work elsewhere.

Posted by: finsher771 | May 28, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

"Hypocrites, i.e. conservatives certainly are out in full force tonight, and, apparently, still wagging their one collective tongue over Clinton's private parts. Probably you giggle at the word 'breast.'

Had this been a Republican president, Republicans at large would be tripping all over themselves in their blather to excuse to excuse it. But there you go, acting all shocked - shocked! - that non-conservatives defend Obama."

I see. Based on your assumption as to how the other side would act in a hypothetical situation, we must all be silent.

Meanwhile, the non-hypothetical reality involving no assumption is that after eight years of raging against Bush at every possible turn, the left is bending over backwards to excuse this blatant criminal behavior from The Chosen One. But that's just fine.

It's a strange world you're living in.

"If Obama and/or anyone else broke the law, then full punishment is in order."

I'm glad to hear you say that. Most of your comrades don't really seem to care.

"But conservatives certainly are in no position to point that out."

Those who make up the opposition are the only ones who WILL point it out. That's how it works. The Opologists never will. Your fantasy scenario where everyone is silent on this, because his apologists won't criticize him, and the conservatives are somehow not allowed to, gave me a chuckle.

I don't really see why you bother to hit the "submit" button if all you can do is engage in this kind of silly rhetoric.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Awwwwwwwwww "SaffronLove".
What a sweet name.
It must be lovely living in a democratic bubble of hypocrisy.
When the shoe is on the other foot, the dems scatter like rats in the rain. Suffer the shame lovie-dove.

Posted by: K8FromOz | May 28, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrites, i.e. conservatives certainly are out in full force tonight, and, apparently, still wagging their one collective tongue over Clinton's private parts. Probably you giggle at the word "breast."

Had this been a Republican president, Republicans at large would be tripping all over themselves in their blather to excuse to excuse it. But there you go, acting all shocked - shocked! - that non-conservatives defend Obama.

If Obama and/or anyone else broke the law, then full punishment is in order.

But conservatives certainly are in no position to point that out.

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

The Obama cabal may still think the people are buying what they are selling. I have a feeling anyone paying any attention is going to be VERY disgusted with their obviously ridiculous explanation. Their performance has gone from bad to worse to horrible.

Purge congress and then expunge the idiot and his posse.

Posted by: wvshooter | May 28, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama has shown his disdain for the country in so many ways, this is just another. Consider the bologna about how every problem that he is (obviously) ignoring is really the last thing he thinks about at night and the first thing in the morning - yeah, right, how many times will that story be used. The multiple 5-hour golf outings juxtaposed with the 3 hour fly by of the oil leak tells the tale. What about embracing every tyrant in sight and slamming the state of Arizona with his buddy from Mexico in OUR OWN CONGRESS - classless! Wake me when this nightmare is over.

Posted by: HonestJohn501 | May 28, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

An amazing display of in-your-face arrogance! Is there anyone who would seriously buy into this pathetic story? Good thing he got that bastion of "good character" to "fess up". What a farce!

Posted by: HonestJohn501 | May 28, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

It is possible that people were acting guilty because they are guilty.

Brian O'Connor
www.RedDogReport.com

Posted by: mrbrianoconnor | May 28, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Just another bald-faced lie and illegality in the culture of corruption fostered by Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew. I wonder what it cost OhBummer to get Slick Willie for cover. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, now....

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | May 28, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Now that I know the Clinton's are involved.

I'm certain everything said is the truth.

They are as pure as the driven snow.

LOL,
Remember this whole thing started because the Dems knew they where losing control of the Senate without Specter this November.
Specter had so many skeleton's in his closet the Admin knew they could get Specter to vote however they wanted. All gone now.

Put your seatbelt on, this is gonna get ugly.

Posted by: flynny | May 28, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Just another bald-faced lie and illegality in the culture of corruption fostered by Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew. I wonder what it cost OhBummer to get Slick Willie for cover. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, now....

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | May 28, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Now that I know the Clinton's are involved.

I'm certain everything said is the truth.

They are as pure as the driven snow.

LOL,
Remember this whole thing started because the Dems knew they where losing control of the Senate without Specter this November.
Specter had so many skeleton's in his closet the Admin knew they could get Specter to vote however they wanted. All gone now.

Put your seatbelt on, this is gonna get ugly.

Posted by: flynny | May 28, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

There was a reason they called him "Slick Willie".

On the one hand, I can help but be disgusted by their corruption, yet on the other, I can't help but be agog at the sheer skill at which he managed to stay just barely within the bounds of the law. As with the gentleman of the extensible posterior, one cannot bear to watch, yet one cannot look away.

Gentlemen, we are in the presence of a master; would that he go away.

Posted by: HarryVoyager | May 28, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I believe the information released by the White House has been carefully honed to, as much as possible, leave all parties with as much cover as possible.

If and I say if (considering what the meaning of "is" turned out to be), this is all that Sestak was offered, then clearly he is guilty of having grossly exaggerated to the point of deceiving the public by conjuring up a conspiracy to bribe him out of the race...reflecting poorly on both Obama and Specter.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | May 28, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

The Law

What is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise federal employment to an individual in exchange for future political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits public officials from using government-funded jobs or programs to advance their partisan political interests. The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “directly or indirectly, promise[ ] any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “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 primary election” (emphasis added). As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.” Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Senator Specter)

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone REALLY BELIEVE this? I don't!

This is the cover-up; a LIE to get Obama off the hook. No way did Slick Willie suddenly sink to the level of B.O.'s bag boy. B.O. knows this is impeachable, and Clinton was drafted to help save his neck.

What does Sestak say?! He's the one who knows the TRUTH!

Posted by: AZPaleocon | May 28, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

this kind of thing is every day no big deal ? yeah unless your a republican then you get 5 against 1 liberal media on your 6, 24x7

Posted by: corp21 | May 28, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

WHENEVER SOMETHING INVOLVES CLINTON YOU CAN ALSO ANTICIPATE A FOLLOWING CRISES INTENDED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENTAL ACT.

Posted by: djsteil | May 28, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"I did not have sex with that woman."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 28, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"These kind of actions are common practice by both parties as a way of shaping party primaries. The Sestak case isn't unique. The legal basis for a prosecution would chart entirely new territory. Even assuming that the 'worst case' is true and that the Clinton story is bogus -- e.g. that he was offered a chance to take a pay-cut for some position in the executive branch -- there is still the problem of 'material benefit,' which normally involves money changing hands. No one has asserted that that took place."

The law is very clear on this matter.

The administration may not offer any position, appointment, or anything else of value in trying to get someone to commit a political act. That is the law, and it has been broken here. There is a not-so-subtle distinction between appointing people who have done things you like in the past, and offering an appointment in an attempt to get someone to do something you want them to do in the future.

The law has been violated.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Whoa this is one of his biggest lies yet.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 28, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Not surprised they turned to Clinton for their dirty work ...after all he is from Arkansas and dirty politics is the game our former Governor knows best. Obama knew making Hillary Sec. of State, he too would be getting two for the price of one

Posted by: POOKIESMOMMY | May 28, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

A former IMPEACHED president whose wife is Sec Of State cannot help but involve himself with the vermin in the White House in illegal dealings. Either I am dreaming, or more likely, Mr. Clinton, a has been, found himself encouraged and made to feel important by Mr. Obama's corrupt inner circle.

This is a sad spectacle and is a result of arrogance and disrespect for the Constitution by those in power. Where is their honor?

Posted by: drjon4u2 | May 28, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

WHENEVER SOMETHING INVOLVES CLINTON YOU CAN ALWAYS LOOK FOR A CRISES INTENDED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENTAL ACT.

Posted by: djsteil | May 28, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"Vitaminc,
5 U.S.C. 7323 is legally entirely irrelevant in this 'case', should it become a case."

Explain.

"18 U.S.C. 600 has not been effectively prosecuted since 1971"

That means it's not law?

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious, I can't remember one time Gibbs has said anything close to resembling reality or the truth. The guy is a liar, and everybody knows it. He's defending a corrupt and incompetent administration. I'm glad obama is in it up to his eyeballs with the clintons, because when the s*#&t hits the fan, it'll be like watching two starved rattlesnakes on amphetamines in the desert sun. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of common criminals. Woooohoooo!

Posted by: Superpower | May 28, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd say it's more a product of the media echo chamber.

This story broke months ago and disappeared. It was then pumped up by conservative news networks and conservative reps as a way to change the subject from a problematic nominee in Kentucky. The ploy worked.

The stunningly obvious question at the heart of this is: Where is the real controversy?

These kind of actions are common practice by both parties as a way of shaping party primaries. The Sestak case isn't unique. The legal basis for a prosecution would chart entirely new territory. Even assuming that the "worst case" is true and that the Clinton story is bogus -- e.g. that he was offered a chance to take a pay-cut for some position in the executive branch -- there is still the problem of "material benefit," which normally involves money changing hands. No one has asserted that that took place.

Even in more clear cut cases where a person raises money for a political candidate and receives an Executive branch appointment if the candidate wins the general election (See Evans, Don Commerce Secretary or any number of ambassador posts) -- these are never prosecuted, because they fall within the realm of accepted practice.

As a reporter, it should generally be a red-flag when KARL ROVE starts talking about what kind of political actions are and aren't legal (e.g. a college drop-out who thought it was #1. appropriate for political staff to interfere in the operations of the Justice Dept. and #2 who thought that firing prosecutors for their failure to push politically motivated cases was legal behavior). If Karl Rove isn't in jail, then the bar for blatant illegality must be pretty low. This incident doesn't even come within a whiff of the Rove threshold.

Posted by: JPRS | May 28, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

In a related note Willy also called LeBron James at the behest of the Cleveland Cavaliers owner and offered to give LeBron a position directing traffic at all Cavs games next year if he would stop playing Basketball. Despite this real great offer LeBron has reportedly refused this most generous offer.

Posted by: fe59 | May 28, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

When Mr. Clinton had lunch this week with Mr. Hussein they discussed how to mislead the public and congress about this matter. When Mr. Clinton left the lunch he felt a pain in his back and thought maybe it was another heart attack but it wasn't, it was the knife Mr. H Obama had stuck in Mr. Clinton's back. Watch yourself Bill and oh yeah watch yourself Hussein because each of you are known you know whats! And where did Judas Emanuel have lunch that day? Oh this could be the novel of the year...hee hee.

Posted by: steely | May 28, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of a big deal because it's a felony to rig an election. Any crook from Chicago or Kenya knows that!

Posted by: carlbatey | May 28, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

What, exactly, is the right way to handle charges of a federal corruption felony? Apparently, according to Chris Cillizza, say "it's no big deal, everybody does it".

I have a theory about people who say "everybody does it" about such things: don't trust them.

Posted by: pyellman | May 28, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Clinton accepting the assignment to represent Emanuel and Obama proves to me the Clinton, a convicted felon must really hate Comrade Obama for not getting caught yet.

Posted by: djsteil | May 28, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Clinton wouldn't lie, would he?

Special Prosecutor, NOW!

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, a convicted fellon would be a most appropriate choice to represent Emanuel and Obama. By accepting the the assignment it proves to me that Clinton must really hate Comrade Obama!

Posted by: djsteil | May 28, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The fallout from the Sistak job offer may or may not be a big deal. As for Stonewalling never paying off, it doesn't pay off if the media does its job, sniffs the facts out and reports some semblance of the truth.

But Obama has been spectacularly success in stonewalling on his birth certificate. He's refused to show it to us, and the media has fanatically assisted him. That's understandable, the media wanted Obama elected President. And if it turns out he's not a "natural Born" US citizen required of all Presidential candidates, the media will have assisted in perpetrating the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media would never want that known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

"The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute.

But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel's request, he was Rahm's agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still "something of value" within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote.

And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter's vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate -- all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place."

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar - Look at the post counts on the other threads. The drive-bys will exhaust themselves within 24 hours. And they NEVER bother looking at other Fix threads. So, Drudge links and one comments thread is nuked. No biggie.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Us lawfull and freedom loving Americans will NEVER let this felony and impeachable offense get swept away by the Comrade Obama tryanical administration.

Bye the bye it's very appropriate that Clinton a convicted felon would be representing Emanuel and Obama! He must really hate Obama.

Posted by: djsteil | May 28, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."

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

LOL!! How about acting guilty when you are guilty.

Based on another article on the WAPO, Obama admitted to offering the job. And so that is not illegal? Seriously? LOL!

I wonder why liberals feel trying to bribe a candidate to dorp out of an election with a job is not illegal. It is probably the same reason they think illegal immigrats deserve to stay in this sountry without and recourse!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 28, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."

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

LOL!! How about acting guilty when you are guilty.

Based on another article on the WAPO, Obama admitted to offering the job. And so that is not illegal? Seriously? LOL!

I wonder why liberals feel trying to bribe a candidate to dorp out of an election with a job is not illegal. It is probably the same reason they think illegal immigrats deserve to stay in this sountry without and recourse!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 28, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."

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

LOL!! How about acting guilty when you are guilty.

Based on another article on the WAPO, Obama admitted to offering the job. And so that is not illegal? Seriously? LOL!

I wonder why liberals feel trying to bribe a candidate to dorp out of an election with a job is not illegal. It is probably the same reason they think illegal immigrats deserve to stay in this sountry without and recourse!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 28, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Mishandled! Think Mishandled! OK?!? MISHANDLED!!! Are you programmed yet?

No crime! MISHANDLED!!! JUST MISHANDLED!!!

I'll check my mailbox in the morning for Obama's invitation to the White House drool-fest...aka left-wing media worship and praise dinner.

Ohhhh...Obama, please teach us what to think. Don't leave us to our own minds. We're too weak! We don't know what to think without you.

Posted by: bob59 | May 28, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier, then the birthers show up.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job and sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job and sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job and sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job and sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

A minor deal because Rahm is vacationing in Israel. If he were in town, the whole thing would be blown over and done with.

Posted by: markiejoe | May 28, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Stonewalling may not work when the press does it's job sniffing out and reporting some semblance of the truth. But in one instance, Stonewallling by the Obama Campaign and White House has been spectacularly successful.

Obama has successfully avoided showing us his birth certificate. Of course, the media has assisted him mightily in keeping that rock wall in place. Look at it this way: if Obama isn't a "natural born" US citizen, eligible to be President, the Press has helped him get away with the biggest political hoax in american history.

And the media can't bear to let that be known.

Posted by: rphillips1 | May 28, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Is this Jimmy Carter's 2nd Term we're watching? Where does the "malaise factor" stand right now? Can't the Hussein Obama Regime do ANYTHING right except raise taxes?

Posted by: whinylibshateme | May 28, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Good luck giving this story a pair of legs, GOP. The "Look, a butterfly" crowd are the Republicans. Anyone with a brain is focusing on the Gulf. Hey Drill, Baby, Drill crowd....FOCUS. The Gulf is dying. This non-story won't cut it.

Posted by: blosmurph | May 28, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, the great paragon of truth. You can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 28, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey, it's just politics as usual... for the most ethical and transparent administration ever. It's simply Chicago style, pay-for-play politics.
It still amazes me how many fools voted for this ward-healing, community organizing, Marxist. Why would anyone have expected anything different.

Posted by: mainwolf | May 28, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse


This information will be out of sight and mind by Tuesday! Something that is purely illegal will be swept under the rug by the media and the party. Once more the elites will get away with huge violations of the law, with the press being accomplices. I'm pretty disgusted with "cover up press" in aiding the crime. it won't be until the administration openly takes control of the media, as in Venezuela! Willing accomplices!

Posted by: thompsor | May 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The Law

What is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise federal employment to an individual in exchange for future political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits public officials from using government-funded jobs or programs to advance their partisan political interests. The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “directly or indirectly, promise[ ] any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “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 primary election” (emphasis added). As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.” Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Senator Specter)

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

We are watching how the Clinton's go about securing themselves a Supreme Court nomination. These scumbags will do anything to get what they want. What a bunch of dopes we are for putting up with these losers year after year.

Posted by: russfinch | May 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I was worried that the Hussein Obama Regime was not telling us the truth about Sestak. That is, until I found out that clinton was involved.

Posted by: whinylibshateme | May 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

@ Andrea_KC. It is amazing how short a memory liberals have. George Tenent, the CIA chief, was an appointee of Slick Willie who Bush retained. Also, Kerry and Hillary were shrieking that Hussein had WMD. To top it off, after 9/11 they convened a panel to find out who knew what and when - blaming Bush who had been in office all of 8 months that he did not connect the dots. Then these same people who blamed Bush for not reacting - when he reacted using information from the same CIA about the WMD - started screaming Bush lied.

Posted by: BigLouie | May 28, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

This is purely Repukican attack activity, which should be ignored by WaPo. It is only a "story" because bored editors haven't found sillier stuff to displace it. Sestak didn't win because of anything Clinton did. He won because Specter accumulated enough negative points in Pa. voters' experience to finally dethrone him. End of story. Toomey's surrogates will get nowhere with anyone except their own choir of far-right nitwits with this attempt to cloud Sestak's campaign. Ignore this non-issue. Every party at every level tries this, and only really weak candidates grab the illusory brass ring so offered; Republicans should beware what they are asking for; they might get it--inflicted on them in due time. Sestak is made of much stronger stuff. He's no orator or Specter's calibre, but he's better at it than Casey. Toomey is using gutter tactics already, which shows how little strength he has as a candidate.

Posted by: jv26 | May 28, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama's not only the worst President since "Peanut King" Jimmy Carter. He's the worst leader of any country in the Americas since Montezuma.

Posted by: sbourg55 | May 28, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Nixon "mishandled" the facts I guess.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: grunk | May 28, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Its good to see that I was right in wanting Obama to win the Dem nomination. If Hillary would have won, she wouldn't be screwing up as badly, which in turn wouldn't have lead to the massive gains in the houses, like we are sure to see now. Not only that but it showed the Replicans that a moderate candidate is not what people want. It is conservatism that wins, if there would have been a clearly conservative candidate then Obama would have never won. Maybe now the Replicans will stop trying to get a candidate that appeals to everyone. When somebody tries to make everyone happy, all they do is make everyone unhappy. It is after all only possible to make some of the people happy all of the time, but you can make all people unhappy all time ie Obama. Its good to see the Dems going to hell in a hand basket its about time people see them for who they are.

Posted by: Rams495 | May 28, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh, georges2, you just don't know how persuasive you are. Your name calling, insults, threats and exaggerations are the tools you use to present your views. Ever thought about how ineffective you are using insults?

A person as angry as you must be a dream to get along with. I'll bet your family, neighbors and co-workers just LOVE to see you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris Cillizzilla:
Thanks for backing me up and pretending to want to get to the bottom of this "issue". I owe you. What, I don't owe you? Well then, double-thanks. Don't know what I did to deserve your adulation. Nice of you to back me up. But if you have kids.....too bad......I'm ruining the economy for them. Sincerely, Barack.

Posted by: sbourg55 | May 28, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris Cillizzilla:
Thanks for backing me up and pretending to want to get to the bottom of this "issue". I owe you. What, I don't owe you? Well then, double-thanks. Don't know what I did to deserve your adulation. Nice of you to back me up. But if you have kids.....too bad......I'm ruining the economy for them. Sincerely, Barack.

Posted by: sbourg55 | May 28, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

This is one reason why this article is nonsense...."on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else"

First of all this author has no possible way of proving that every single day some challenger candidates are approached. Two things, he has no way of knowing this and it is not realistic to think a challenger could be approached every single day. Therefore, the very first sentence of this article demonstrates the duplicity in the content of the article. It just becomes ludicrous.

Posted by: Macksfield | May 28, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Living in Obamabad: Obama, Clinton, Emmanuel etc. - the "dirtbaggers" - liberals who depend on nitpicking technicalities to excuse their actions (it depends on what the meaning of"is" is)and ignore the essence of ethics and integrity.

Posted by: maryckk | May 28, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh, 12BarBlues, you are so perceptive! Did my anger show? I thought I had hidden it. It's just that I don't like liberals. They're just not bright enough to realize how really stupid they are. All during the Bush administration, I had to listen to how awful he was, and now, that we really do have an AWFUL president, you don't hear anything except nasty remarks about Republicans or conseratives or REAL AMERICANS! I can assure you that this anger will hold until November of this year and then until November of 2012!! Obama is a closet dictator. He's worse than Robert Mugabe. He's ruining this nation!

Posted by: georges2 | May 28, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Hey, it turns out Joe Wilson WAS right.
Obama is a liar. Go figure. I would have never guessed that. And Bill Clinton is a pure and honest man. Yeah right!

Posted by: billiardlo | May 28, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh, 12BarBlues, you are so perceptive! Did my anger show? I thought I had hidden it. It's just that I don't like liberals. They're just not bright enough to realize how really stupid they are. All during the Bush administration, I had to listen to how awful he was, and now, that we really do have an AWFUL president, you don't hear anything except nasty remarks about Republicans or conseratives or REAL AMERICANS! I can assure you that this anger will hold until November of this year and then until November of next year!! Obama is a closet dictator. He's worse than Robert Mugabe. He's ruining this nation!

Posted by: georges2 | May 28, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Its been a big story, but can you imagine if this had happened under Bush? Why they would have already been appointing a partisan panel and a special prosecutor. This President has been all that I expected so far, I just can't wait to see where he screws up next. Obama is incapable of making a tough or right decision. He will give in a little, i.e. Afghanistan surge and 1200 troops to border, but won't go far enough for success, so what happens is he makes no one happy and nothing is successful. All I have to say is watch out Carter you are about to be moved up off of the bottom for being the worst modern President.

Posted by: Rams495 | May 28, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

elporko: Bush's former ethics lawyer has already concluded this isn't unethical, much less "illegal."
_______________________________

How could he? He doesn't KNOW THE FACTS. That what an independent prosecutor does, gets the facts.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama's LIAR CZAR needs to be fired. This is a really, really, really bad lie. How much is this man (woman?) getting paid to write Obama's lies? He's certainly not earning his salary!!

Posted by: georges2 | May 28, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Vitaminc,
5 U.S.C. 7323 is legally entirely irrelevant in this "case", should it become a case.
18 U.S.C. 600 has not been effectively prosecuted since 1971, when it would seem that Reagan engaged in similar activities without impunity.
Legally, this is a tempest in a teacup. What anybody wishes to think of it would depend purely on their political leanings.

Posted by: jim24 | May 28, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

elporko: Bush's former ethics lawyer has already concluded this isn't unethical, much less "illegal." If BHO committed a crime, did Ray-Gun and Bush One commit one as well when they did the SAME thing during their tenures?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

george wrote: Take a better look at those knuckledraggers. I think they're your relatives.
-----------------------------
@noacoler,

I thought what you posted was pretty mild, but you can see how sensitive the posters-of-the-day.

All the Perry Mason wannabes have been posting for HOURS imagining how they would interrogate the President and the former President. They've got their laws memorized. They are drooling to get at them.

Of course, they are litigating on this blog, not in court, not in Congress, not anywhere it counts.

How long do these Drudge drive-bys typically last? I'll wager tomorrow we'll be back to agonizing over the Gulf oil gusher.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Pick one which Matches DEMOCRAT, (or more):
Smarmy creeps
Sleazy thuggish pols
Lying criminals
Unethical, immoral slugs
Deceitful nasty officials
Morally bankrupt individuals

Posted by: Yeeeech | May 28, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Blade, noa: remember a Columbia Journalism review article called Fix a Drudge "imitator" and "emulator" so it's not surprising Drudge would link to him to spread this irrelevant nonsense that Fix, sadly, elected to front.

BHO needs to investigate which WH adviser persuaded him to scamper down this silly gopher hole by answering the wingnuts' questions about this totally fake controversy.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

the faithful barackies here who insist that this is a charge trumped up by either foxnews or the republicans are simply substituting their bias for their ignorance of the law. if, as sestak himself has said on multiple occasions, he was offerred a job from the whitehouse, or clinton as a proxy, to drop out of the race, that is a FELONY.
much like watergate, if a proper investigation should discover that this offer came with the president's approval, that is AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. this is serious stuff. barack doesn't get a pass because you think he's 'cool' or you don't like hearing the truth.

Posted by: elpolacko | May 28, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Can anybody cite a law or statute that was broken?
Posted by: transtique
=======================
Yes, it's called the people's trust.
Like a wheel, once it's bent, it's broken.

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Noacoler, Noacoler, you're just so much better than the rest of us commenters. Yawn. Typical liberal remark. You have nothing to add about the article (perhaps you didn't understand it) so you'll try to denigrate the commenters. Take a better look at those knuckledraggers. I think they're your relatives. If your comments mean you believe Obama and don't believe the majority of the commenters on this site, then it's hopeless to try to reason with you. You must not have a job.

Posted by: georges2 | May 28, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness Hello Kitty makes sense 'cause the rest of this is yap yap YAP.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 28, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

The Law

What is illegal and not normal practice in Washington is to promise federal employment to an individual in exchange for future political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 600 prohibits public officials from using government-funded jobs or programs to advance their partisan political interests. The statute makes it unlawful for anyone to “directly or indirectly, promise[ ] any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit” to any person as a “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 primary election” (emphasis added). As the OLC opinion says, § 600 “punishes those who promise federal employment or benefits as an enticement to or reward for future political activity, but does not prohibit rewards for past political activity.” Future political activity would arguably include dropping out of a contested primary in order to benefit the White House-endorsed candidate (here, Senator Specter).

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, vitaminc,
for the civil discourse!

Posted by: jim24 | May 28, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Boing!!!! So when do the impeachment hearings begin. Get the crooks out.

Posted by: 45upnorth | May 28, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

jim24

The laws in question are:

18 U.S.C. 600

5 U.S.C. 7323

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, here's the problem. After a while, when you've been telling so many lies (the healthcare bill won't cost very much, this administration will be transparent, etc., etc.), it's kind of hard to come up with something that the American people haven't already heard before. Seriously! Does Obama really think the American people are that stupid? I didn't vote for this man, but I know a lot of people who did, and they have have totally lost faith in government. The really sad thing is that Obama doesn't care. He got what he wanted. He wanted to be able to say, several times a day, in front of a mirror and in front of people, I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Frankly, I hope, ten years from now, when the Texas Textbook Committee meets again, they'll consider leaving out all references to his four years in office!

Posted by: georges2 | May 28, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Just what is this all about? Transparency it is as Obama said it would be is it not? It is all about Bill Clinton or is it not? But then it depends just what is is. If that is not clairvoyance than I just don't know what is is.

Posted by: dryhole100 | May 28, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Slimier than a Gulf oil spill.

Posted by: grunk | May 28, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm ... wonder what Spector's prize was for jumping the aisle?

Posted by: RJMcG1 | May 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Ugh, as if this place isn't ugly enough with the usual trolls, it's intolerable when it gets a drudge link.

Where the hell do you knuckledraggers come from? I don't even want to drive through the place with the windows rolled up.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The good thing about truth, is that sooner or later, it bubbles to the surface.
Be it oil wells, or political spoils.

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The disgraced former president of Lewinsky fame is now the errand boy for the disgraceful current piece of dung that occupies the once respected office of president!

Posted by: colnzgprnts | May 28, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

The disgraced former president of Lewinsky fame is now the errand boy for the disgraceful current piece of dung that occupies the once respected office of president!

Posted by: colnzgprnts | May 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Vitaminc,
if it is so easy to find the law you are fond of quoting on google, why don't you just do so and share the link with us, thereby not only bringing the rest of us up to date, but also lending some credibility to your statements?

Posted by: jim24 | May 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Libs answers to everything,

Sestak said he was offered a job to drop out of the race. It is an illegal act to offer something of value to remove someone as a candidate for office. It's the LAW.

Libs ans. "Faux news"


But it's against the law.


Libs ans. "Bush and Faux news"


But it's illegal

Libs ans. "Hush/Cheney/Rumsfield and Faux news.


But the people want to know the truth.


Libs ans. "Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin and Faux News.


Is it any wonder there's Crap in the White House and Congress


NOVEMBER

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Just what is this all about? Transparency it is as Obama said it would be is it not? It is all about Bill Clinton or is it not? But then it depends just what is is. If that is not clairvoyance than I just don't know what is is.

Posted by: dryhole100 | May 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I drove Bill Clinton in a convertable in a parade in our native Arkansas. He was running for Gov and made a speach to a crowd attedning the local 4th of July celebration. I was living in IL at the time. I listened to his speach and observed the crowds reaction. He had the people spellbound. When he finished I drove him to the airport where his plane was waiting. In person he makes you feel he has waited all his life to meet you. What a personality!!

Posted by: rebels8 | May 28, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse


Can anybody cite a law or statute that was broken?

Posted by: transtique1 | May 28, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it folks.... ALL politicians lie. The very qualities that enable their election, are the same reasons why they are UNFIT TO SERVE.

One has to be a liar, manipulator, devious and unprincipled to succeed at the ballot box.

So how exactly then are they prepared or qualified to serve?

Montaigne.

Posted by: DeLyonGetty | May 28, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."

and now we have one.......

"ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS THIS WONDERFULLY TRANSPARENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION...."

Posted by: canwetalk1 | May 28, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Impeach Obama. Send both Clinton's home. These actions would leave our country financially safer, we’d be less embarrassed by who represents us around the world and our children and grandchildren could have a better chance for a future.

Posted by: themainlineman | May 28, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

"If this thing is as bad as you insist, why are you here, on some random, obscure message board? Shouldn't you be calling your senators and representatives and demanding a Congressional investigation? Mobilizing a protest? Gathering torches and pitchforks, and maybe some tar and feathers?"

I am perfectly free to discuss political issues anywhere I choose. I do not require your permission, nor must I be contacting politicians or heating up tar in order to do so.

"Even your conservatives buddies here aren't showing you an ounce of support. That means you're an embarrassment to them. An utter embarrassment."

You may not have noticed, but there are plenty of other people here taking the position that this is a problem.

"As I said, come back when you can argue like an adult."

Says a person who just spent an entire post not discussing the issue, pretending instead that I don't have a right to discuss it and then proceeding to engage in ad hominem garbage. Funny.

You don't have to like being wrong, but you're wrong nonetheless. A crime was committed here, and you're not adding anything to the discussion with posts like that.

"Vitaminc,
be so kind as to post a link to the law you are quoting.
Thank you."

You should be able to find it easily via Google.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Hope all who voted for him just love the changes, as for me give me back the good old days..... At least then a crook was a crook not a socialist

Posted by: w_haverty | May 28, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Funny as anything....this Administration are not only a bunch of criminals, they are bumbling criminals! Obama, take a note: If you are going to commit a crime, don't get caught. You are such a one termer...ba bye.

Posted by: powerange | May 28, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Okay...no crime committed? Sestack said he was offered a job and kept saying "I answered honestly" and didn't elaborate what it was. Then Obama has lunch w/Clinton (to get their story straight before the press conference). Sestack will not comment until the president comments. Then it turns out it was nothing? Why wouldn't he just say that in the first place? Was this something that Sestack was hanging over the administration's head to win, maybe with the voters or with Obama supporting him (in some way) more? This is very shady. Sestack will not win in November because he has come accross as a lier and sneaky. Something happened and they are just covering their butts. Sestack wanted to HEAR what the administration was going to come out with before he commented. There is some kind of deal somewhere. What these people have said are obvious lies. There is no reason for Sestack not to speak up earlier unless he was trying to extort.

Posted by: thoragibson | May 28, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama got caught lying to us again and this time committed an impeachable offense, so the DNC calls in it's most "polished liar" to give Odimbo cover and plausible deniability. Chalk up another one for Slick Willie.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | May 28, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Vitaminc,
be so kind as to post a link to the law you are quoting.
Thank you.

Posted by: jim24 | May 28, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

It's beyond debate this is a classic Faux News fake controversy. Still, we blame BHO for taking the bait and agreeing to answer these wingnuts' queries.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 8:56 PM
_______
I beg to differ. Why was NBC's Chuck Todd not pursuing this issue? Todd is so enthralled with himself now that he's a Washington insider and White House puppy that he won't even investigate this story.

Why would the White House want to retain an old political hack like Arlen Specter, who has well out-lived his usefulness as a U.S. Senator, let alone a public servant?

I know that this happens in politics all of the time, but this is clearly an example that those of us who voted for "change" in 2008 will NEVER see any change at all.

Obama's promises are beyond lies. His administration will go down in as among the most deceitful in American history.

Posted by: retiree11 | May 28, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse


"The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute.

But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel's request, he was Rahm's agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still "something of value" within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote.

And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter's vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate -- all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place."

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"It's beyond debate this is a classic Faux News fake controversy."

The facts of this matter are confirmed both by Sestak and the White House's own "report." There is nothing fake about it. This happened, and it's illegal.

"There was no crime committed.

Sestak's statement is available on line for all to see. And nowhere does he speak of the deal that Fox News alleges."

Both Sestak's statement - quoted already in these comments - and the White House "report" confirm these facts: Clinton contacted Sestak. He tried to convince Sestak to drop out of the primary. He floated the idea of an advisory board position in trying to convince Sestak to do so.

You might as well deny that water is wet.

"Hey, Vitamin, you're wanted over at Fort Marcy Park. Tell Vince 'hello.'

IMO, you have a tad too much time on your hands. Just sayin'."

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you're wrong, but lame attempts at attacking me won't change anything.

"While you are playing silly political games there is a ongoing disaster."

The White House has committed a felony. There is nothing silly about it, and this is not a game.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Is this the same Bill Clinton who was impeached by the United States congress for obstruction of justice and disbarred from practicing law in his own home state of Arkansas??

Just when was it exactly that his credibility was restored?

Posted by: orion666 | May 28, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I voted for a man I once trusted, but I trust him no more.
So spin on DNC spinsters, you can't take what I know away from me.

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

vitaminc: "Sure, and I have made my factual arguments. But when braindead partisan blah blah . . ."

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

If this thing is as bad as you insist, why are you here, on some random, obscure message board? Shouldn't you be calling your senators and representatives and demanding a Congressional investigation? Mobilizing a protest? Gathering torches and pitchforks, and maybe some tar and feathers?

Even your conservatives buddies here aren't showing you an ounce of support. That means you're an embarrassment to them. An utter embarrassment.

As I said, come back when you can argue like an adult. Until then, run along

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

While you are playing silly political games there is a ongoing disaster.

There are no cameras or reporters at the source showing them working the top kill.

Epic corporate media failure.

Pathetic.

Posted by: getalife1 | May 28, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

OK let me see the man WHO DIDN'T HAVE SEX with THAT GIRL.. is suddenly believable?? Listen I voted for Clinton.. However, BOTH him and OBAMA have one thing in common their line of BS.. AND Rahm is just a mafia wannabee he THINKS he's cool but it's only in his own mind that he is..

Posted by: lcky9 | May 28, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

While you are playing silly political games there is a ongoing disaster.

There are no cameras or reporters at the source showing them working the top kill.

Epic corporate media failure.

Pathetic.

Posted by: getalife1 | May 28, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

OK let me see the man WHO DIDN'T HAVE SEX with THAT GIRL.. is suddenly believable?? Listen I voted for Clinton.. However, BOTH him and OBAMA have one thing in common their line of BS.. AND Rahm is just a mafia wannabee he THINKS he's cool but it's only in his own mind that he is..

Posted by: lcky9 | May 28, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

1. Who offered a job to Sestak?

2. What job was proffered?

3. And did the president know of the offer?

The people of the United States and, particularly the people of Pennsylvania, want these questions to be answered honestly. They will not settle for a Democratic stonewall that refuses to let the truth emerge.

Under our federal system, we need not tolerate giving one party the power to be the prosecutor, judge, defendant, defense attorney, and jury. We can open the process to checks and balances.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

There must be less than 50 people in the whole country that actually believe this preposterous story from the White House. What it provides is legalistic deniability, not credibility.

Posted by: DaMav | May 28, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

OK let me see the man WHO DIDN'T HAVE SEX with THAT GIRL.. is suddenly believable?? Listen I voted for Clinton.. However, BOTH him and OBAMA have one thing in common their line of BS.. AND Rahm is just a mafia wannabee he THINKS he's cool but it's only in his own mind that he is..

Posted by: lcky9 | May 28, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

OK let me see the man WHO DIDN'T HAVE SEX with THAT GIRL.. is suddenly believable?? Listen I voted for Clinton.. However, BOTH him and OBAMA have one thing in common their line of BS.. AND Rahm is just a mafia wannabee he THINKS he's cool but it's only in his own mind that he is..

Posted by: lcky9 | May 28, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

There was no crime committed.

Sestak's statement is available on line for all to see. And nowhere does he speak of the deal that Fox News alleges. If he did, the money quote would be appearing here on a thirty second basis. Instead, all we get is Republican style hand waving. The same sort to thing used to prove up the Republican birther claims.

The Republicans will simply shriek about this for a few days and then, when it becomes clear to all that there is nothing here, Republicans will claim a conspiracy is hiding the truth.

And this story will join the Republican kook conspiracy cannon along with Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, Orly Taitz's sanctions, Bush's WMD and the rest.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Vitamin, you're wanted over at Fort Marcy Park. Tell Vince "hello."

IMO, you have a tad too much time on your hands. Just sayin'.

Out. The Celtics are on.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Chicago Odumbo and Slick Willie doing something illegal?? Naw!

Posted by: Smarg | May 28, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

"vitaminc: 'Tu quoque' [for about the fifth time]"

I will call bullsh*t on tu quoque as many times as tu quoque is attempted.

"and an instance like this where all attorneys asked say there is nothing to this"

Bald-faced lie.

"But one never expects conservatives to understand a reasoned statement...."

Refer to my analogy about defending the action of bribing a police officer by the same logic. Thanks for playing - here's your parting gift...

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

@SaffronLove

You said; "Actually, there ARE other ways to disagree besides calling names."

Then you said; "But you spend too much time in your windowless bunker to know what they are."

Then you said; "But I will say this: liberals aren't the only ones who are sick of suffering you teabaggers."

I guess the ONLY term to describe YOU, SaffronLove, is HYPOCRITE!

Now shut your pie hole!

Posted by: 1hughjass | May 28, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain ! God Bless President Obama and the USA ! In less than half a term he has awakened and breathed life into a complacent, comatose electorate. My father turned 78 today. A Navy Veteran of the Korean war. At supper he said grace with sincere humility from a nation like no other. We The People will decide the degree of consent we give in being governed. "I am a free man no matter what rules surround me; if they are tolerable I tolerate them; if they are obnoxious I break them; I am free because I alone am morally responsible for all I do" Menkhen. We still contain that spark of rebellion, that healthy distrust of authority. May we always question established office whether government or church. I am damned proud to be an American ! Where I profess Jesus as my Savior while likewise I demand Satan have an advocate !

Posted by: Kracker1 | May 28, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Will Chris the "Fixer" whitewash cover up the issue by ignoring the fact that Sestak said someone from the "Whitehouse" offered him a "job" in exchange for staying out of the race. Clinton is not the "Whitehouse", (but he did have w/Obama the yesterday?) Now, you're claiming it was 'non-paying position' - yeah right, it's just a "PR Problem" - yeah right, nothing to see here sheep, just some holiday weekend (can't remember which), go to the beach, go golfing, BBQ some chinese chiken. But, Remember Kids let me and the 6 O'clock News do all the thinking for you! It's a community service.

Posted by: surfdumb | May 28, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

...making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press...

Ha! Surely you jest. The press bludgeon their binky!? That's a whopper.

Posted by: jpmzo | May 28, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

It's beyond debate this is a classic Faux News fake controversy. Still, we blame BHO for taking the bait and agreeing to answer these wingnuts' queries. Bad move. Re-think the WH advisors who told you to respond to this smear, 44.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Do you figger Specter asked Obummer to intervene for him? What if Specter admits that he asked Obummer to intervene for him? Should he be impeached along with Obummer? This thing is gonna blow up like Watergate because of all the covering up. Ain't it rich that Clinton is in the middle of this? I'll bet Hillary is thinking Bill is stupid for helping Obummer out. Hillary would like for Obummer to go down on this. Now Bill has complicated her plans to rise again.

Posted by: josephlausier | May 28, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, there ARE other ways to disagree besides calling names."

Sure, and I have made my factual arguments. But when braindead partisan apologism more indicative of a cult than a political following surfaces, I call it what it is.

"But you spend too much time in your windowless bunker to know what they are. You're ACHING for Obama to mess up, and the fact that this is all you have is laughably pathetic."

All I have? You're serious?

This is the subject at hand. A crime has been committed. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other problems with this White House.

"As for 'my side,' what side would that be? I'm pretty sure I've never discussed my politics with you."

It's fairly obvious which side you are on. Don't be coy.

"But I will say this: liberals aren't the only ones who are sick of suffering you teabaggers."

Boring rhetorical bluster.

"Come back when you can argue like an adult."

That is precisely what I have done. I have discussed what is actually in the law, and what the confirmed facts are here. I have also responded to hyper-partisan drivel from the likes of Andrea_KC by labeling it appropriately.

"And stop being a hypocrite."

There is not hypocritical in what I have said here.

"Usually where there is smoke there is fire. however, the right wing has been known on many occasions to simply purchase large smoke machines...and use corporate money to pay for them."

If the facts of the situation weren't confirmed by Sestak and the White House, you might have a leg to stand on here.

"Maybe you should wake up. You've been on here for hours trying to convince a bunch of liberals you're right. What possible difference can that make? The liberals on this blog are not the courtroom you seek. If you have a case, Mr. vitaminc, esq. go prove it in court or in Congress where it counts."

You're serious?

1) I have not "been on here for hours." I have made a handful of comments in between doing other things.

2) I don't seek a courtroom and I am not in a position to investigate felonious actions by the White House.

"Put up or shut up. I, for one, am getting tired of reading your hysteria that not everyone sees the world as you do."

This isn't a matter of perspective. The law says what it says.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

vitaminc: "Tu quoque" [for about the fifth time]

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

Keyboard stuck again?


Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Now we're going to have to drag Bubba in to swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

What do you think the chances are that we'll get the truth out of the pant load?

Posted by: TennesseeJed | May 28, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh, c'mon... it "depends on what the definition of 'is' is"

Remember the libtards trying to make hay over the Valerie Plame (non) issue?

Turnabout is fairplay....

Posted by: 1hughjass | May 28, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

These are not the bush lawyers who authorized torture. AND it is important to note the difference between the torture issue -which ONLY bush's lawyers saw as somehow excusable, and an instance like this where all attorneys asked say there is nothing to this, EVEN the lawyers who worked for bush.

But one never expects conservatives to understand a reasoned statement....

Posted by: John1263 | May 28, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

vitaminc: "There are no other words to describe this kind of apologism but 'braindead' and 'cult-like.' My statement was accurate. And considering that your side has taken to calling millions of people racists and violent extremists for no reason, you don't have much room to complain when your defense of this felonious White House is accurately labeled as 'braindead' and 'cult-like.'

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

Actually, there ARE other ways to disagree besides calling names. But you spend too much time in your windowless bunker to know what they are. You're ACHING for Obama to mess up, and the fact that this is all you have is laughably pathetic.

As for "my side," what side would that be? I'm pretty sure I've never discussed my politics with you.

But I will say this: liberals aren't the only ones who are sick of suffering you teabaggers.

Come back when you can argue like an adult. And stop being a hypocrite.

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Usually where there is smoke there is fire. however, the right wing has been known on many occasions to simply purchase large smoke machines...and use corporate money to pay for them.

Posted by: John1263 | May 28, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Thats just great...bring in a known lier to help cover up your stupidity. Dems are so morally inept that they bring in the fraudster-in-chief. Why can't dems come up with real men to run for president? Carter, Clinton and Obama gotta be the worst of the worst. Compare that to Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush. All men of honor who our military respects vs the absolute contempt for the dems. Why is that?

Posted by: jerho7 | May 28, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Wake up.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:33 PM
-------------------------------
Maybe you should wake up. You've been on here for hours trying to convince a bunch of liberals you're right. What possible difference can that make? The liberals on this blog are not the courtroom you seek. If you have a case, Mr. vitaminc, esq. go prove it in court or in Congress where it counts.

Put up or shut up. I, for one, am getting tired of reading your hysteria that not everyone sees the world as you do.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"Even Bush's former ethics lawyer says the Sestak matter is a NON-ISSUE:"

Anyone else find the irony in liberals now quoting Bush ethics lawyers?

These are the same lawyers who said enhanced interrogation tactics weren't torture.

So which is it? You can't cherry pick the things you agree with as proof that no crimes were committed, then turn around and excoriate Bush lawyers for their take on enhanced interrogation tactics.

So I assume you will now no longer be interested in any investigation into Bush administration torture policies?

Investigations in every case is a good thing. Only the guilty have a problem with the truth coming to light.

Posted by: barneyfrankstein | May 28, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

"I did not have sex with that Congressman, I mean I did not offer him a job."----- "Job, what do you mean by a job?"

Posted by: bobilly1 | May 28, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Deflect, obfuscate, attack, drag religion into it, just don't let the rule of law interfere, right?

Posted by: finn43 | May 28, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"Ah yes, more Christian-speak from the so-called 'moral' (quotes intended) majority."

Wha-huh?

There are no other words to describe this kind of apologism but "braindead" and "cult-like." My statement was accurate. And considering that your side has taken to calling millions of people racists and violent extremists for no reason, you don't have much room to complain when your defense of this felonious White House is accurately labeled as "braindead" and "cult-like."

"Er, because it's not illegal and never was,"

It certainly is illegal. The law explicity forbids this. You can deny it all you want, but the law is what it is.

"see Bush's former ethics lawyer's legal opinion."

Sure. By his logic, the following would be an effective defense of my bribing a police officer:

I didn't bribe that police officer. Because arresting me, and accepting my bribe and not arresting me, are two mutually exclusive options. It can't be a bribe when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive!

Do you see now how silly his logic is?

I also have to laugh that the left is now turning to one of Bush's legal beagles, who have already justified all sorts of things the left was up in arms about, now that Obama is in the hot seat. That's good for a quick laugh.

The law is what it is. This is illegal. The law is written in plain English, after all.

"Wow, I guess those secret energy meetings were illegal, after all."

Tu quoque, especially when it's such a stretch, will get you nowhere. Even if I were to pretend that they're the same thing, two wrongs wouldn't make a right. Wake up.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

vitaminc: "The law explicitly forbids offering ANY position, appointment, or anything else of value in trying to convince someone to perform a political act. Whether the position involves monetary compensation or just prestige and power does not factor into it."

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

Wow, I guess those secret energy meetings were illegal, after all.

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHA, Chris Godzilla, or whatever your name is. Your a weak little pissant shill for the Obama administration. What a crock of crap! It's a non story, much ado about nothing, and on and on. This is Watergate part deux, you clueless moron. What a joke bringing in Clinton and prolonging this huge lie. This is a high crime and misdemeanor and should result in the Comander-in-fraud Obama being removed from office for orchestrating this entire thing. What a joke the left-wing media has become.

Posted by: RADPC | May 28, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

The White House thought Specter would have more support in Pennsylvania than Sestak but
a Republicans will probably win the seat anyway so what's all the fuss about?

Besides Specter is way past retirement age and will have a fat income to live on. If the people of Pennsylvania don't think they need him anymore so be it.

Posted by: loyalsyst | May 28, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

What we have here is another Trooper Gate.

A hysterical wing nut story made up out of thin air.

The only thing missing at this point is a David Brock - a person to come forward and admit that he made the story up out of thin air. And we'll probably see this as the wing nut and teabaggers get more crazy and repulsive.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 8:05 PM
==========================================
Looks like you bought the spin, hook, line and sinker. Do you work for the DNC? Nobody knows the truth on this, but we have more evidence of possible improprieties to go forward with a special prosecutor than we did on CIA agent Valerie Plame's outing a few years ago.

Posted by: DL13 | May 28, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

From the U.K. Times:

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
------------------------------
So Obama and Slick Willie kissed and made up. And Bill will do anything for a "B.J."

Posted by: shastinaguy | May 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

So Sestak fell on his sword for his party/this administration. An admirable thing to do for a man. But if anyone believes this "Clinton did it" nonsense, I'm selling prime oceanfront property along the Louisiana Coast, anyone interested? Can Americans be so naive and blind?

Posted by: redk94 | May 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

The Gulf is a dead zone. Millions of Americans have lost the lives they loved. Eleven men are dead. How desperate are the Republicanms that they are dreging this up now and trying to inflate it into something that matters? Please! Shelve it. It's the GULF. THE GULF! Focus, you fools! Later for this....

Posted by: blosmurph | May 28, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

vtimainc: "braindead, cult-like followers"
---------------------------

Ah yes, more Christian-speak from the so-called "moral" (quotes intended) majority.

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"Sestak said he was offered a job to drop out of the race. This is ILLEGAL. Why is this so hard for the dumba## libs to comprehend?
O yes, they're dumba##es.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 8:14 PM"
_________

Er, because it's not illegal and never was, see Bush's former ethics lawyer's legal opinion. Were Ray-Gun and Bush committing crimes when they did the SAME thing? Move on...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

So, tonight CBS, NBC and PBS played this story at the tail-end of their coverage, meaning it's no big deal.
This also means the main stream media has become just another part of our global cartel, catering to our wants, but not responding to our needs.
This means two things: don't trust what
you hear, and get your information from other sources.

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

While they are investigating this crime, they should look into many others!!! The Judicial branch of government is supposed to be a separate power, it seems these thugs own it!!! The fact is, there is a very fine line separating a law person from a criminal(ly insane)!!! They study each other, they know each other through and through, one has a moral boundary the other doesn't (Unless someone is watching)!!! Criminals are in charge of the political structure of America, faking their social/moral/honest/sincere/conservative appearance in public view, it is why they meet behind closed doors so they can shed their public image and become who they truly are (Self empowering/enriching thugs/connivers (Con artists))!!

Posted by: American08 | May 28, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"An UNPAID advisory position?
Is this a 'bribe'?
'Illegal'?"

Yes. The law explicitly forbids offering ANY position, appointment, or anything else of value in trying to convince someone to perform a political act. Whether the position involves monetary compensation or just prestige and power does not factor into it. It says ANY position.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm just sitting here, imagining that President Bush had come out with a story like this. Then I'm imagining the Washington Post printing an article such as this one. Then, somebody slaps me and I come out of the daze I was in. Is this the best Obama's administration can come up with?

Look, I understand that Chicago Thugs aren't used to having to explain to anyone how something happened. Let's face it, the Chicago press knows what's going on but they let it slide, but Barack knows he's not in Chicago any more. Can't he come up with a more believable story that this one?

If the Washington Post, and the rest of the legacy media, are willing to buy this, we need to change the constitution and stop freedom of the press because it's just not working. We have nothing more than propaganda sites now so why have the pretext of freedom of the press for Americans, it's being completely redefined by this administration.

Posted by: bflat879 | May 28, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: PanAm1 | May 28, 2010 7:57 PM :
How "convenient" an explanation: an"alibi" at the ready that the job offer was about an "unpaid" position -- for sure to try to make it seem for public consumption the offer that was not illegal... For THAT a former president was sent as the behind the scenes operative?...
Give the public a friggen break, that they can think and reason...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excellent post, PanAm. This is so much like Watergate, often described as a 3rd-rate burglary which would have been dealt with as such, but for the cover-up that ended Nixon's presidency.

If all of this was so innocent, why didn't they just explain it 3 months ago?

I'd like someone - anyone - on the Left to answer that simple question.

Posted by: NDSue | May 28, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

What a non story. If Rove were in charge, Sestak would wake up with a horse's head in his bed. This story insults our collective intelligence. You should have left for vacation instead of writing it.

Posted by: MikeKelly45 | May 28, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris? You don't really believe that anyone believes that Sestak was offered a "non-paying" consulting position, do you really? It just goes to show how morally corrupt these peole are. You included.

Posted by: bobilly1 | May 28, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"So, Republicans are pointing fingers about illegalities and lies.

Could the irony be any thicker?"

Tu quoque, especially the baseless kind, will get you nowhere.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

An UNPAID advisory position?
Is this a "bribe"?
"Illegal"?
If *I* offered somebody an unpaid advisory job, it would be neither of the above, but might be perceived as being offensive.

Posted by: jim24 | May 28, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Sestak said he was offered a job to drop out of the race. This is ILLEGAL. Why is this so hard for the dumba## libs to comprehend?
O yes, they're dumba##es.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Andrea_KC - Ms. Mitchell don't you have another supposedly unbiased tv attack job, I mean report to make?

Posted by: Justice26 | May 28, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

So, Republicans are pointing fingers about illegalities and lies.

Could the irony be any thicker?

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's all move along. Nothing to see here. Keep moving, nothing to see here.

--Leslie Neilsen
Naked Gun

Posted by: ProfessorPooky | May 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post. The paper who would not take NO during the Watergate case. The paper who had people digging for every kernel of information from anyone and everyone they could find. The Post is far from living up to its reputation. It has become The paper of the past. Reading Chris Cillizza's tepid interest in the issue of the president possibly having committed a Felony is just plain sad reading.

Posted by: fraudcop | May 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

"Breaking at Fox News: BHO spit on the sidewalk. More at 11."

Breaking at HuffPo: The Obama administration commits a felony and his braindead, cult-like followers compare it to spitting on the sidewalk.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's all move along. Nothing to see here. Keep moving, nothing to see here.

--Leslie Neilsen
Naked Gun

Posted by: ProfessorPooky | May 28, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

dudh: " I don't mind that Obama was working the politics of the thing."

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

Spot on. Eveyone has a different definition of "business as usual"; besides, it's no secret that when the chips are down, even conservatives show up to the Democratic-legislated unemployment lines, a philosophy that is the undertone of the Democrats, i.e. everyone has to be viable to move forward.

At least the Democrats understand that real life calls for pragmatic measures, so I say, if this is what it took to keep the Democratic philosophy in place, bring it on.

After all, how many teabaggers have voluntarily given up their Medicare? That's right - NONE.

When conservatives are on the side of the middle class and working poor, they can yammer all they want to about the Democrats' occasional improprieties. Until then, they can move right along. There's nothing here to see.

Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"What we have here is another Trooper Gate.

A hysterical wing nut story made up out of thin air.

The only thing missing at this point is a David Brock - a person to come forward and admit that he made the story up out of thin air. And we'll probably see this as the wing nut and teabaggers get more crazy and repulsive."

I love how every time you get refuted, you simply run away from the point and return to your belligerent, cultish mudslinging against those of us who are pointing out a violation of the law.

Made up out of thin air? You have got to be joking. Both Sestak and the White House confirm the facts in play here.

Be more brainwashed, please.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Breaking at Fox News: BHO spit on the sidewalk. More at 11.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

IF the White House actually offered Sestak a job, how is that Sestak's fault? And if the White House DID offer Sestak a job, how is it his fault for declining it?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 28, 2010 11:52 AM
==========================================
Because it's not Sestak's fault or guilt.

Sestak didn't offer the bribe - Obama, through Rahm and Clinton, did.

Which is why Sestak is so eager to talk about it. Obama tried to get Sestak to take a lesser job i.e. remain a Representative and get some worthless White House job instead of Senator of PA.

This is all about spreading bribes around just like Blagogate.

Spector was supposed to get paid for switching parties and voting Obama. But Sestak screwed that up; now it looks like Obama took Spector's vote and then kicked him off the island.

So much for loyalty and proving the ability to get some graft done.

Ya just can't make this stuff up. Time for a West Wing with the stories ripped right from the Obama headlines.

Posted by: krankyman | May 28, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse


Even Bush's former ethics lawyer says the Sestak matter is a NON-ISSUE:
________________

How could he know, he doesn't have all the facts. That's why a special prosecutor is needed to get the FACTS not just what that Crap in the White House says.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

What we have here is another Trooper Gate.

A hysterical wing nut story made up out of thin air.

The only thing missing at this point is a David Brock - a person to come forward and admit that he made the story up out of thin air. And we'll probably see this as the wing nut and teabaggers get more crazy and repulsive.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris, what's really notable about this story is the way that you, and others in the mainstream media, went into full water carrying mode for the Obama administration.

Ask yourself this question and be honest:

If this had been a story about a senior Bush admin. official engaing in potentially illegal activity to remove a GOP candidate from a race, would you have been half as apologetic, as deferential as you and others are now acting toward the Obama white house?

Didn't think so.

Keep speaking truth to power, Chris.

Posted by: guest1 | May 28, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Even Bush's former ethics lawyer says the Sestak matter is a NON-ISSUE:"

Nobody cares. The law is the law. And it is quite clear.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

To: atc333

The Lemming Party you refer to is the Party of No!

Lol, you just do not get it do you? I was referring to both big tent parties. Please read, it is not a bad thing, neither is thinking. Party of no? Sounds pretty simpleton to me. No to what? Are you saying that no to tyranny is bad? Would saying yes to Hitler on everything have been good? Wake up man, think.

Stupid religious ideologies? You are speaking to the wrong party.

Dude, I was speaking about Republicans and conservatives here, if you would have read the post, you would have been able to discern this, but apparently you are so blindly defending the dems that you missed this?

And, yes, I do understand the concept of socialism and I do understand why it cannot work. Would be more than happy to debate that with you. If you think you have evolved beyond the concept of learning, then you apparently have a lot to learn. Read my posts man, I still have no idea why someone who I am sure is going to claim they are a liberal, would decide to attack a Libertarian, lol. Un-freakin-believeable.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Even Bush's former ethics lawyer says the Sestak matter is a NON-ISSUE:

"The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.
The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new. Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party. Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries. White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”. The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive."
_____________________

I know this legal opinion won't satisfy the usual fools, bigots, and socios who are overcome with BHO hate, but we tried...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Fox says that Sestak claims he was offered a job in exchange for for quitting the Senate race.

Sestak himself says that Clinton told him he was needed in Congress and that Obama wanted him to participate on a board and an unpaid adviser.

And, of course, the wingnuts take the word of Fox News over that of Sestak himself."

Both the Sestak statement - as you quoted it yourself in these comments - and the White House "report" confirm that Clinton contacted Sestak. He tried to convince him to drop out of the primary. He floated the idea of an advisory board position in trying to convince Sestak to do so. This isn't my claim. These are the facts.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Read the statement instead of letting Fox News tell you what the statement says.

It doesn't say what you claim."

Both the Sestak statement - as you quoted it yourself in these comments - and the White House "report" confirm these facts. Clinton contacted Sestak. He tried to convince him to drop out of the primary.

=====

No. That's what Fox News told you Clinton said.

Clinton actually said nothing of the sort. And that's why you can't post a quote to support the garbage Fox filled you up with.

And if you post what Fox told you. I'll just post Sestak's statement to prove you wrong.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I agree the White House mishandled this and wonder if Gibbs is just not up to the post.
I do have to say, though, that had this been handled in the most professional possible way, it would still be a huge controversy. Not because it deserves to be, but because the administration is busy running the country and the opposition simply spend their time creating controversy from nothing.
One more thing...
Sestak stepped in this big time. His character and his judgement have been brought into question. As common as the practice has been, it has also been handled discreetly in the past. His answer to Larry Kane was a mistake and you can see on his face he knew that at the time.

Posted by: lostinthemiddle | May 28, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

What? A bunch of Chicago thugs and Bill Clinton break the law? It's an outrage to even think that could happen. Doesn't everybody know what the meaning of "IS" is and want "Depends ON" means?
"I did not have sex... rather, I did not offer a job to that women.... rather, "I did not offer a job to anyone. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Besides, Hillary says it's a right wing conspiracy and I know old Cillizza at the Post will back me up. Right, Cillizza?"

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The libs response is all the same. Others did this, so it's OK.

It was ILLEGAL!

Don't you wish we had a national press that did their job?

Posted by: abnashow | May 28, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

How "convenient" an explanation: an"alibi" at the ready that the job offer was about an "unpaid" position -- for sure to try to make it seem for public consumption the offer that was not illegal... For THAT a former president was sent as the behind the scenes operative?...
Give the public a friggen break, that they can think and reason...

Posted by: PanAm1 | May 28, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

jackspratt1: "Resign Kenyan and ride off into the African sunset."
------------------------

Yes, here we go - rather than protesting the actions, you have to take a swipe at Obama's ancestry. And then you show your "outrage" at being called a racist. And THEN you claim the moral high ground by insisting that this is a Christian nation and should function as such in all domains, including that which is legal.

You've just proven what everyone else already knows about the teabagging crowd. Way to go, dimbulb.


Posted by: SaffronLove | May 28, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"Help out this ignoramus, all you sagacious commenters: let's say Clinton offers Sestak a $250,000 job in his organization, at the behest of the WH, not to run -- which seems to be what people are assuming."

Nobody has assumed anything of the sort. The story is that he was offered a prominent advisory board position, and that is what we are discussing.

"So? What's the ethical problem? What's the legal problem?"

It is against the law to offer any position, any appointment, or anything else of value in trying to convince somebody to perform a political act.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

pubs/rats no difference. cannot any of u fools think fo r urselves?

Posted by: pofinpa | May 28, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Fox says that Sestak claims he was offered a job in exchange for for quitting the Senate race.

Sestak himself says that Clinton told him he was needed in Congress and that Obama wanted him to participate on a board and an unpaid adviser.

And, of course, the wingnuts take the word of Fox News over that of Sestak himself.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Help out this ignoramus, all you sagacious commenters: let's say Clinton offers Sestak a $250,000 job in his organization, at the behest of the WH, not to run -- which seems to be what people are assuming. So? What's the ethical problem? What's the legal problem?

Please 'splain to this ol' boy. (I know that it's distasteful to some because it's something done by a Dem, but otherwise what's wrong?)

Posted by: mrdooley | May 28, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Help out this ignoramus, all you sagacious commenters: let's say Clinton offers Sestak a $250,000 job in his organization, at the behest of the WH, not to run -- which seems to be what people are assuming. So? What's the ethical problem? What's the legal problem?

Please 'splain to this ol' boy. (I know that it's distasteful to some because it's something done by a Dem, but otherwise what's wrong?)

Posted by: mrdooley | May 28, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

And the press once again reports on itself in finely nuanced detail, continuing its inevitable death spiral.

*shrug*

Posted by: Nissl | May 28, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

andrea_kc

tin hat.

"Sestak told us what was said to him and nothing in the statement is illegal"

logic fails you huh?
1. he is the one who said the WH/Admininstration offered him a job to get out of the race.

2. What part of A makes B mutually exclusiv

====

Fox News said that.

Sestak didn't say that.

But you know that.

You just don't want us to know that.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"Read the statement instead of letting Fox News tell you what the statement says.

It doesn't say what you claim."

Both the Sestak statement - as you quoted it yourself in these comments - and the White House "report" confirm these facts. Clinton contacted Sestak. He tried to convince him to drop out of the primary. He floated the idea of an advisory board position as an incentive for Sestak to do so. This isn't my claim. These are the facts.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Was President Ray-Gun a criminal, too?
____________

Associated Press story from 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.

Hayakawa, who was seeking a second term at the time, was being urged by GOP officials to withdraw from the 1982 primary, a race that included, among others, Reps. Barry Goldwater Jr. & Bob Dornan, San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson, and First Daughter Maureen Reagan. The last thing the White House wanted was a split-conservative field that would end in the nomination of Rep. Pete McCloskey, a longtime anathema to the Right. Hayakawa ultimately decided not to run for re-election. Wilson won the primary and was elected in November."

Case closed. Next...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey, here's a thought: Why don't we let investigators determine whether or not this is "acting guilty when you're innocent," "mishandling the controversy," or your other attempts to spin this as anything but what it smells like?

If it's just the "small thing" you claim, why worry?

Posted by: cynicalidealist | May 28, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"This one might be something similar. We'll just have to wait and see."

We've already got the information. This isn't an allegation being made by the right. Both the Sestak statement and the White House "report" confirm that Clinton floated to Sestak the idea of an appointement to an advisory board position in trying to convince him to drop out of the Senate primary.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"Sestak told us what was said to him and nothing in the statement is illegal."

Again, both the Sestak statement and the White House "report" confirm that Clinton floated to Sestak the idea of an appointement to an advisory board position in trying to convince him to drop out of the Senate primary. That is indeed illegal.

====

Read the statement instead of letting Fox News tell you what the statement says.

It doesn't say what you claim.

And always remember, Fox News laughs at your stupidity after they use you for a tool this way.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Transparency? A different day in politics? Change you can believe in! Are you believing? Sorry, I'm not!

Posted by: granny1 | May 28, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"vitamin, was it a crime when Reagan and Bush did it, too?"

If Reagan or Bush offered positions or appointments to people in trying to get them to perform political acts, then yes, that is illegal. Tu quoque will get you nowhere.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

andrea_kc

tin hat.

"Sestak told us what was said to him and nothing in the statement is illegal"

logic fails you huh?
1. he is the one who said the WH/Admininstration offered him a job to get out of the race.

2. What part of A makes B mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Justice26 | May 28, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

The manufactured Republican scandal I enjoyed the most was the one ginned up by Limbaugh and Fox that Kerry had had an affair with his intern.

And when the intern herself denied it, Fox, Limbaugh and Hannity promised "proof" in "just a few days".

They then devoted hundreds of hours of air time to filling the heads of the gullible rubes up with drek. And the rubes bought it hook, line and sinker.

And then the rube foolers never came forward with their proof. And the rubes still believed the story and believe it to this day.

This one might be something similar. We'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

To:hyperionxvii


The Lemming Party you refer to is the Party of No! Block votes, 8 years of doing whatever Bush wanted? Delay, stall, lie, misrepresent, foist off an air head as a VP candidate, and then line up behind her nonsense? Stupid religious ideologies? You are speaking to the wrong party, once again the party you are speaking of is the Party of NO!,the right wing thereof, who wants less government, unless of course is is limiting women's rights, in that case they want more. who want less activist judges, unless they happen to create new law on topics that are dear to them. From your comments, it is obvious you do not understand the concept of Socialism you freely throw about.

Posted by: atc333 | May 28, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

"Sestak told us what was said to him and nothing in the statement is illegal."

Again, both the Sestak statement and the White House "report" confirm that Clinton floated to Sestak the idea of an appointement to an advisory board position in trying to convince him to drop out of the Senate primary. That is indeed illegal.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

What a load of bollocks ... so you think we the people are stupid - offer a man to take six figures less (no pay) for a job offering no pay - idiots, you have broken the law and now YOU LIE again - man the fan is blowing cr@p all over again. Resign Kenyan and ride off into the African sunset.

Posted by: jackspratt1 | May 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

vitamin, was it a crime when Reagan and Bush did it, too?
_________________

BTW, Racist Rand is proposing the Constitution be amended so the US-born children of illegals would not be citizens. A bit more important than this fake wingnut controversy over Sestak, no?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

this is the best reason yet to unload the giggler Gibbs and the media abuser and son of a terrorist Rahm Auerbach Emanuel.

under oath is the only way to get to truth start with William Blythe IV!

Posted by: stargirl1991 | May 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

huh - so if you call someone something with a sneer that is a legit argument.

simple example.

Went to post office.

asked clerk for a passport application.

she informs me that I will have to provide an ORIGINAL stamped birth certificate.

I say surely a copy is sufficient.

Nope. She says "a copy is worthless, never good for anything"

ahem - anyone with a brain can see where this goes.

"Apparently other than becoming president"

She scowled.

The other people in line laughed and applauded.

---------------
It is so sad how you cannot address the issue or the fact. Resorting to insults and attempting to intimidate. So is KC some part of Chicago - because you have their thug behavior down pay.

Swallow the bull,

Posted by: Justice26 | May 28, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Sestak told us what was said to him and nothing in the statement is illegal.

This is all just the same Kenyan birth certificate / Ron Brown / Clinton Black Baby nonsense that Fox News pumps into the heads of the rubes every single day.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"The last time I saw the wingnuts get this riled, Fox News had convinced them that Clinton used a UFO to shoot down Vince Foster's plane."

I can't help but wonder how you think moronic statements like this do anything but reveal you to be the braindead partisan cult member you are.

A crime was committed here. Nobody expects you to care about it. Only a reasonable person would care.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I really cannot believe that the Post still is sucking up Obama's admins drivel. They clearly committed a crime - 18 USC 595 and are trying to cover it up. Further Sestak and Clinton are also part of the cover up now. If this was Bush doing this you guys would be screaming, but not about Obama. It makes me sick that we continue to get bias reporting out of a once great paper.

Posted by: jguy19571 | May 28, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

That's funny.. "acting guilty when innocent." Think about it. The White House at the time was backing Spector. His opponent comes out and says the White House offered him a high level position. If this is true and you support Spector and you want Sestak to lose, to go away...here it is... wait for it.... why not come out in February and make an ass out of Sestak by telling everyone that he is a liar, a joke, he made it up?? Because they really offered him a high level position!!!

Posted by: mark22mcp | May 28, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

The last time I saw the wingnuts get this riled, Fox News had convinced them that Clinton used a UFO to shoot down Vince Foster's plane.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"and this is news?

Last I heard he was offered Secretary of Navy too.

This stuff goes on all the time in Wash DC>

It's called "the deals".

I'm more interested in the top kill than what Joe Sestak said no to.

so there......"

Nobody expects Obama apologists to be interested when his administration commits crimes. You're far too brainwashed and cultish for that.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"and this is news?

Last I heard he was offered Secretary of Navy too.

This stuff goes on all the time in Wash DC>

It's called "the deals".

I'm more interested in the top kill than what Joe Sestak said no to.

so there......"

Nobody expects Obama apologists to be interested when his administration commits crimes. You're far too brainwashed and cultish for that.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Now that this smear has played out and the BHO haters have had their fun, the media should move on now--to the oil spill, unemployment, and what the heck Matt Lauer was thinking.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Democrat lemmings(AKA, progressives, liberals) do not get it. Let me explain for you. There is no such thing as a progressive, or a liberal in today's political world. What we are referring to is Socialists. This is nothing new. This is not progressive. This is not liberal. The only liberals(Social), or progressives(technological) that exists today in politics is Libertarians. I will give conservatives one thumbs up in that they at least realize that the capitalist economic system is the only viable system that we know of. Democrats are just lazy, corrupt, or stupid, take your pick. If you want to learn about real progress, I will tell you, it lies only in Technology, not stupid religious ideologies or cradle to grave nanny state government. Check out H+ magazine. Think, please, it really is not such a bad thing.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

How short the Party of No!s memory is. Seems to me that not too long ago,the Bush Administration, "outed" Valerie Plame, in revenge for her husband daring to criticize the Bush Administration. They they covered it up, and let a poor flunky take the fall, rather than have Cheney fess up to his involvement. So, Obama has offered someone a non paying position if they chose not to run. Which one is a crime under the Federal Code? For you people, It is all about winning at any cost, regardless of what kind of bad behavior it requires.

Posted by: atc333 | May 28, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Andrea_KC - wo you SWALLOW everything Slick Willy (the disbarred) and Rahm (the naked perv) and BHO (the empty shirt front for marxism and terrorist) spew.
Well you can swallow - they love you for that - the people with a brain and integrity can tell a snow job when they see it.

========

You're the one who's dumb and gullible enough to get suckered in by the fake Kenyan birth certificate floating around the internet.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Rambo Deadfish Emanuel, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinto - change we can believe in - what a joke !! More like the three scumbags.

Posted by: sammy13 | May 28, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

and this is news?

Last I heard he was offered Secretary of Navy too.

This stuff goes on all the time in Wash DC>

It's called "the deals".


I'm more interested in the top kill than what Joe Sestak said no to.

so there......

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 28, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Do as I say and not as I do is the Frat Boys of 1600 mantra. And people were expecting an ethical and open administration from Chicago? This is too rich!

Posted by: MDDem1 | May 28, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans just arn't comfortable unless they're involved in some sort of Vince Foster, Trooper Gate, birtherism, Mena style kookery.

I wonder if they're going to try to allege that Obama fathered a black baby? They got a lot of milage out of that one with both Clinton and McCain."

Again, you're embarrassing yourself. This kind of brainless apologism on Obama's behalf does nothing to address the facts of this situation, which are confirmed by the White House's own admission.

"Read the Sestak statement I just posted. It's only a crime in rube reality - where Fox News controls the facts.

Here in objective reality, nothing illegal has been said or done."

The Sestak statement confirms in plain English that Clinton floated to him the idea of being appointed to an advisory board in trying to convince him to get out of the Senate primary.

And this isn't he first time the White House has done this, as we are now discovering.

"Good grief. What happened with Sestak wasn't wrong, much less illegal"

It is illegal. The law unequivocally states that no position, appointement, or anything of value can be offered in exchange for a political act. Dropping out of a primary race to allow the candidate preferred by the person offering the position/appointment to proceed unchallenged is a political act. This is black and white. It is illegal.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Can you imagine how much the lemmings would be crying if this was Bush or the republicans that broke the law ?What hypocrites,thank God they only account for only 17% of America.

Posted by: votingrevolution | May 28, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

And we are supposed to believe that this does not in any way go straight to the top? This, coming from a man who zealously hides his background? Somebody in the WH is guilty of a felony, sounding more like obama himself.

Posted by: martifr | May 28, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Republicans can claim that Sestak is a illegal Mexican immigrant and demand to see his birth certificate.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Sestak is all done in my eyes.They expect us to believe this bull!!These excuses arnt good enough.The Obama administration has a history of trying to interfere with elections with disregard to written LAW.And ya wonder why America is on the verge of a revolution.

Posted by: votingrevolution | May 28, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans can't get this silly mock scandal to fly, maybe they can allege that Obama killed Ron Brown.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The "mishandling" came from two things. One was expecting journalists to do their freakin jobs and look into whether a story has any validity or meaning -- just because they hear it on drudge or fox does not make it new-worthy. the second was forgetting just how LOUD the right wing noise and smear machine can get, and how fast it can get to that volume. Democrats need to remember that it was exactly this sort of smear and lie campaign that kept Dubya in power, and helped republicons stay in office long enough to nearly bring down the republic.

Posted by: John1263 | May 28, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Andrea_KC - wo you SWALLOW everything Slick Willy (the disbarred) and Rahm (the naked perv) and BHO (the empty shirt front for marxism and terrorist) spew.

Well you can swallow - they love you for that - the people with a brain and integrity can tell a snow job when they see it.

Posted by: Justice26 | May 28, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry tacheronb:

Defining an unpaid job as a bribe is a stretch. Wouldn't that be the worst bribe in history? Work for no money is something more akin to parenthood.

Do you not think an unpaid position can be a thing of value? Why is that so many will spend tens of millions of their own dollars to become a congressman at a salary of around zero, compared to their prior incomes?

Posted by: snorton48 | May 28, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

This is a "relatively complex" issue??? LOL that's hilarious. This is about as simply a matter as you can find in politics. Quid pro quo, period. It happens all the time on all sides. This is hardly complex. It's typical. "Transparent presidency" is an oxymoron. To anyone who really believed Obama would be different-I've got some ice to sell you this Winter...

Posted by: esfaulkner | May 28, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Republicans just arn't comfortable unless they're involved in some sort of Vince Foster, Trooper Gate, birtherism, Mena style kookery.

I wonder if they're going to try to allege that Obama fathered a black baby? They got a lot of milage out of that one with both Clinton and McCain.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Ugh.

This Sestak thing was a Faux News fake controversy that would have died a natural death had BHO just ignored it and moved on like previous bogus smears have (see, e.g., Michelle's biceps, (non-existent)whitey tape, flagpins, greeting foreign heads of state respectfully, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers).

By treating it as a legitimate story, which it isn't, BHO guaranteed the haters will keep it alive for at least three more weeks. I mean, does any WH adviser think the haters will now say, "Sounds good to me. Let's go home." LOL.

Good grief. What happened with Sestak wasn't wrong, much less illegal (various blogs reported Reagan and Bush did exactly the same thing without a peep from the press). Moreover, BHO's regarding it as legit sets a bad legal precedent--inviting future intrusion by the press and Congress into the internal deliberations and political discussions inside the White House.

Horrible, horrible WH staff work. A major unforced error. This made NO sense whatsoever.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 28, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

This administration is a joke. Politics as usual is on it's way out on the fast track. Liberals? Progressives? LOL, socialism was already beginning it's slow death within months after the Bolshevik revolution. Didn't work then, hasn't worked since, and will never work. Europe is already experiencing the death pangs of socialism. This Obama admin is the last attempt at repressive socialism that will ever be tried in this world. It is over. The internet has destroyed the illusion of socialism. The internet will destroy the corruption of an elite political class. Only the illusion is left now. The end has already begun. All that is left is the crying, writhing, and gnashing of teeth of the shameless corruptocrats of the 2 big tent parties. I am not a repub or dem, but, seems like a lot of repubs have already realized what I have just been saying. Seems like most dems, cannot wake up from their illusion. No prob for me, progress(please do not confuse this with so called progressives) will march on without the brain dead and politics as usual and the elite political class shall die the same death as the kings and queens as ages past.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, the Ron Paul "libertarian" bloggers in this thread. A sure sign they've been recruited to breathe life into a dying, or should I say dead, horse. I am glad Obama's still playing the political game (not costing the taxpayers' a cent). Hope he's successful! Oh, and Joe Sestak. What a solid candidate for Pennsylvania for the Senate. Sounds like our kinda guy.

Posted by: dudh | May 28, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about this Republican-inspired folderol? What a pile of you-know-what this ersatz "scandal" is.

Posted by: ejs2 | May 28, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"I'm wondering if history will see this wingnut festival as being as kooky as the ones in the past, e.g., Mena, Vince Foster, Trooper Gate, Birtherism or Clinton's black baby?"

You're embarrassing yourself with this mindless apologism. The facts of this story are confirmed by the White House's own admission.

"The ridiculously desperate GOP attempting to make something out of nothing, wasting America's time AGAIN."

This is a crime. A crime. A crime. A crime. Let that sink in, please.

====

Read the Sestak statement I just posted. It's only a crime in rube reality - where Fox News controls the facts.

Here in objective reality, nothing illegal has been said or done.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

where there's smoke, there's fire.

it's doubtful that bill clinton would spend serious political capital on a thing like this. first of all, sestak was an early and vocal hillary supporter during the presidential primary election cycle.

i have no trouble believing that bill clinton was pressured by obama to put the touch on sestak. i'm sure they wanted bill clinton to do much more, however, than simply relay obama's fervent wish that he (sestak) drop the senate race.

i'm equally sure bill clinton would have wanted nothing to do with such interference. so it does not surprise me to hear that the phone call lasted less than a minute.

it's what inevitably happened AFTER that phone call that will be the subject of investigation until someone finds the dirty laundry.

this story stinks. and the truth will come out eventually.

it always does, which it is why it's always so delightfully entertaining to watch the machinations that go on in a futile attempt to control the damage.

Posted by: potomacfever00 | May 28, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

This explanation is simply laughable. You are going to bribe former admiral Congressman Joe Sestak with an unpaid advisory position on some obscure board!??!!! If there is one thing Chicago pols like Obama and Emmanuel know it is how to bribe properly.

But they certainly chose the right guy to spin this yarn, impeached Prez Bubba Clinton, the guy who pled guilty to lying under oath and suborning perjury.

Posted by: Jarbo1 | May 28, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Sestak's statement:

"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects."

And Republicans note that if you record it, and play it backwards at 78 rpm, then it says something illegal - but only if wingnuts are the only people in the room.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Surely Satan is laughing, his two greatest prodigies reluctantly cooperating to complete the lie. They will burn in H-E-L-L anyway, but Admiral Sestak...Perhaps it is now Admiral Sleestak. What will you gain Admiral?

Posted by: D0ntTread0nMe | May 28, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Posted by: dencal26 | May 28, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I have a curious question: Did the reported acts of "Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak" - or any similar acts of intermediary on behalf of officials- make Clinton and Emanuel engaging in an agent-client relationship in the eyes of Laws?

Posted by: sun127 | May 28, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"I'm wondering if history will see this wingnut festival as being as kooky as the ones in the past, e.g., Mena, Vince Foster, Trooper Gate, Birtherism or Clinton's black baby?"

You're embarrassing yourself with this mindless apologism. The facts of this story are confirmed by the White House's own admission.

"The ridiculously desperate GOP attempting to make something out of nothing, wasting America's time AGAIN."

This is a crime. A crime. A crime. A crime. Let that sink in, please.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Surely Satan is laughing, his two greatest prodigies reluctantly cooperating. They will burn in H-E-L-L anyway, but Admiral Sestak...Perhaps it is now Admiral Sleestak.

Posted by: D0ntTread0nMe | May 28, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Sestak will not win in Pennsylvania. And Obama will not win in 2012. Americans are not stupid. We do not believe this story. But that is OK. We will remove from office ALL DEMOCRATS. WE ARE NOT STUPID DEMOCRATS. YOU ARE DREAMING. AMERICANS DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR STORY. LA RAZA MIGHT TRUST YOU. WE DO NOT.

Posted by: post2009 | May 28, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering if history will see this wingnut festival as being as kooky as the ones in the past, e.g., Mena, Vince Foster, Trooper Gate, Birtherism or Clinton's black baby?

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

If you had a sack big enough to hold both Clinton and Obama, and then hit the sack, you would always hit the right one.

Posted by: Hellothere | May 28, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Again the Obama Pinocchio's are at it. The lies of this administration are too numerous to be counted. Hitler had the long knives do his dirty work and now Obama has his long noses.
There is no way to spin this lie without it coming back out as a lie. It is obvious from the admission of the Obama administration, that a crime has been committed, but will it go any further, I doubt it , for such is the way with this administration, it enforces laws that meet their goals but do not enforce laws that they feel do not meet their agenda, such as enforcing the immigration laws.

Posted by: buffalobusy | May 28, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

These two SLUGS leave a SLIMY trail behind them..and Sestak is developing his own little slug track.

Posted by: twp1 | May 28, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The ridiculously desperate GOP attempting to make something out of nothing, wasting America's time AGAIN.

Posted by: dematheart | May 28, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Where as the Bush's were just generally bumbling buffoons when it came to media events like this one. They probably were smarter and more savvy on the international scene and spoke the language of international speak...This crue is just like the Clinton administration...Slimy to the touch and not good at a cover up. They will try all the old tricks that got Nixon in a jam,and Clinton in a jam, but it will lead to some heads getting lopped off or aids thrown under the bus before the final judgment comes in..And they will cry "It's all Bush's fault!!" All the way out the door..Now tell me..have I got this crue figured out yet?? 60% plus of us think so.

Posted by: mstone14 | May 28, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

"The faux outrage machine is on full blast over another non-story. What else is new?"

This is a crime, as I explained below. Wake up from your O-trance, please.

"I dunno. I don't mind that Obama was working the politics of the thing. In fact, it reassures me that he maintains such an interest, seeking to keep up the strength of his administration and relations with Congress."

It REASSURES you that the White House is committing crimes?

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"...small things can quickly grow into big things..." ????? A small felony is a big felony. I will be polite and ask that you pull your head out of the sand. Another Obama drooling journalist evades the facts and issue.

Posted by: sunshine484848 | May 28, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The foremost prerequisite for being a progressive liberal or a mainstream journalist is being comfortable with lying and intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: winston32 | May 28, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

The real fix is that Chris Cillizza publishes this drivel as though it is fact.

He should legally change his name to Baghdad Bob, Since his "job" is really minister of information.

Does "anyone" except people so far up the big O's butt actually believe this baldface lie.

Posted by: Spiritrider | May 28, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I dunno. I don't mind that Obama was working the politics of the thing. In fact, it reassures me that he maintains such an interest, seeking to keep up the strength of his administration and relations with Congress. Plus, Sestak is a great candidate Democratic candidate for the Senate seat. Glad he sayed in it!

Posted by: dudh | May 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

This is such a non-issue. This only matters to bigoted 'tea party psychos.' They slept for 8 years through the most criminal regime in modern history (aside from Reagan's), and now exhibit daily tantrums.
====================
This matters to only "Tea party psychos," you say?
Actually, I'm a life-long dem who voted for Mr. Obama, and I can assure you, he has lost my trust.
Special counsel now!

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Bad day -- Sustak is doomed. He should just resign and let Toomey take the position.

Posted by: 45upnorth | May 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The faux outrage machine is on full blast over another non-story. What else is new?

Posted by: js_edit | May 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The law is not open to the defense the Opologists are providing here.

The law says anything of value. A prominent advisory board position is something of value, whether there is monetary compensation or not.

The law says any position. A prominent advisory board position is a position, whether there is monetary compensation or not.

The law says any appointment. Being appointed to a prominent advisory board is an appointment, whether there is monetary compensation or not.

The law does not say "positions and appointments are okay as long as the value lies in their prestige and power as opposed to monetary compensation."

It says any position. It says any appointement. It says anything of value.

Unless you wish to argue that an appointment to a position on this board is neither a position, an appointment, or anything of value, your defense of this garbage falls flat.

Posted by: vitaminc | May 28, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

We know now that Obama is batting 0 for 4 in actively supporting candidates. Many liberals were saying that Obama really wanted Sestak and not the old hack Spector.
We know the truth now.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

bigfoot:

You sound weak.

Your Messiah is the #1 domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. We will be lucky to survive him and his anti-American bride.


Okay, Garland,

And I thought I was being polite. I may sound weak, but at least I don't sound like a lunatic. WTF are you even talking about?

Posted by: bigfoot1 | May 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington." Small things. Really? Let's review: Clinton has lunch with Obama yesterday and today, well, what do you know?......it was Bill who offered an UNPAID (????) consulting position to Sestak?? Can't wait to hear what Arlen and Rahm and Bill have to say once Congress changes hands in November and the investigations begin on these slime balls. Cillizza, you're such a good lap dog....good boy!

Posted by: rastines | May 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington." Small things. Really? Let's review: Clinton has lunch with Obama yesterday and today, well, what do you know?......it was Bill who offered an UNPAID (????) consulting position to Sestak?? Can't wait to hear what Arlen and Rahm and Bill have to say once Congress changes hands in November and the investigations begin on these slime balls. Cillizza, you're such a good lap dog....good boy!

Posted by: rastines | May 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The lie of the day today is that the job that was offered was for no pay. Ha-ha! Looks like they got a lying pro to do the lying fix for them. Slick Willie.

Posted by: Eyeball1946 | May 28, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton and Obama are not friends. Remember how Clinton criticized Obama's win in January '08 as the just the result of black voters?
Now what besides money or more specifically Obama's friends paying-off Hillary's $12 million campaign debt would cause Bill to involve himself in this scandal?

Posted by: sperrico | May 28, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Two wrongs don't make a right, but R.Reagon did the same thing. I don't imagine that youngsters on the Right know that, but he did.
Obama says he knew nothing about it. The way to prove this is that Emanuel has to go.

Posted by: mcdonalsherry | May 28, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Sorry tacheronb:

Defining an unpaid job as a bribe is a stretch. Wouldn't that be the worst bribe in history? Work for no money is something more akin to parenthood.

Posted by: paul6554 | May 28, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Two wrongs don't make a right, but R.Reagon did the same thing. I don't imagine that youngsters on the Right know that, but he did.
Obama says he knew nothing about it. The way to prove this is that Emanuel has to go.

Posted by: mcdonalsherry | May 28, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

In recent polls, 70% of Americans don't trust this government.

In Biden speech, Get a F--king Independent Prosecutor. Most Americans don't trust these Chicago thugs.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

sophistry -- sycophant -- cellophane Man -- Cheshire cat --
?? How many ways to say I ABHOR thee??
the author has no creds - and certainly is wearing no clothes!
Wee Willie Winkle was brought back from temporary purgatory in order to suborn perjury once again --? Or do we just call this politics as usual?? wink wink?
?? What "offers" was this author given in order to print the party line??
(Ner)"O" fiddles while the country collapses --
not bad for a country boy from Hawaii.

Posted by: sdproffittwbhinet | May 28, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, NOW!

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:33 PM |

jblast, let's wait until the Republican majority can pick the special prosecutor in November. We don't want Oh!vomit's administration promising a Dem special prosecutor a plum government position for a 'not guilty' prosecution.

Posted by: Max17 | May 28, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the most corrupt President since Richard Nixon.

Posted by: dencal26 | May 28, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

DemocRats just remember!

"The TRUTH has infinite points of contradictions that ALL must align!

Otherwise, WE GOT YOU BREAKING LAW!

====

Last week you told us Obama broke the law when he snuck into country from Kenya.

What happened to that?

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Bigfoot:

I'm sorry that you think that the Sestak matter is no big deal.

I happen to think that people should be free to run for office without behind the scenes attempts at bribery. And offering jobs is a BRIBE.

Posted by: tacheronb | May 28, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the wingnuts are going to claim that Obama killed Vince Foster?

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cillizza, how do you know this was the only offer that was made.
Why would Sestak even bother to bring up a non paying advisory role as a substitute for a REAL JOB? HUH? This only makes sense to a dumba## liberal who loves the Obamination of America.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, NOW!

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

This is such a non-issue. This only matters to bigoted 'tea party psychos.' They slept for 8 years through the most criminal regime in modern history (aside from Reagan's), and now exhibit daily tantrums.

Posted by: revbookburn | May 28, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

What's the problem? Our Secretary of State cut a deal w/ the president for her current job in exchange for her pulling out of the race and ensuring an easy nomination for him. Now she's running around the world as though she's actually qualified for the job.

Posted by: randysbailin | May 28, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

DemocRats just remember!

"The TRUTH has infinite points of contradictions that ALL must align!

Otherwise, WE GOT YOU BREAKING LAW!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't you love these pompeous lunatic leftists who think they're being so droll by starting their comment with...Hmmm.

It just looks so stupid.


====

Hmmmm. You sound really frustrated. Scared you're not going to get your twisted story to fly? And you'll have to go back to selling the Kenyan birth certificate silliness?

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

The reason this silly story became a big deal is simple: the right has been salivating for a mini-scandal so that they can try to do to the Obama administration what they did without interruption during the Clinton administration. And it doesn't matter what the White House, Sestak or anybody with any knowledge about these matters says. Now that it's gotten some traction they will never let it go. Never. Think "Travelgate", think "Vincent Foster," etc., etc. They tried this with ACORN and screamed bloody murder that nobody outside of the right-wing echo chamber of Fox News and talk radio was giving it the same attention. It now seems that the Washington Post will join in. And so it goes. Welcome to what Washington will be like if the Republicans gain a majority of the House or Senate. Forget the economy, forget the environment, forget terrorism: it's the mini-scandal du jour. You can see the saliva coming from Issa's and Hannity's mouths. Cillizza is just acting as the typical Beltway "journalist." What a shameful exhibition.

Posted by: rubbersoul1 | May 28, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Get a special prosecutor. You cant' trust this crap from Chicago or this congress that hides behind locked doors with bribes, sweetheart deals and corruption.
And Clinton? Mr Bill "Felonious" Clinton?
Bill "Meaning Of IS" Clinton?
Yes, Get a special prosecutor.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see JUST ONE liberal posting here that is willing to say that the White House has more credibility than Sestak on this matter.

Good lord. CLINTON was dispatched to offer Sestak a NONPAID job on an advisory board if he dropped out of a Senate race? We are supposed to believe Emanuel instead of a retired Navy admiral with a lifetime of service to our country who is willing to say REPEATEDLY, ON NATIONAL TELEVISION, that he was offered a job in exchange for not running for elected office? And this is supposed to happen every day, and what's the big deal?

My question to you liberals is who is going to go down for this, because God knows, the guy who actually authorized this travesty isn't planing on taking responsibility.

Posted by: tacheronb | May 28, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

bigfoot:

You sound weak.

Your Messiah is the #1 domestic enemy of the United States Constitution. We will be lucky to survive him and his anti-American bride.

Posted by: Garland1 | May 28, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Ya' think the Washington Post could write a more puff piece than this for the Dems? It would be hard to top this is done "on nearly a daily basis" or "would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington" or "How do you make something out of nothing?," or "Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today." Blah, blah, blah. No wonder this "news"paper is biting the dust. They better not expect a government bailout for this kind of "journalism".

Posted by: curious3 | May 28, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"I am not a crook."
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place."
Fool us twice, and shame on us, but three times?

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Read Sestak's statement.

Clinton told Sestak that he was needed in Congress more than in the Senate and offered Sestak an upaid advisory position with the Obama Administration.

And the wingnuts brazen twisting of this story is just more Kenyan birth certificate stuff.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Don't you love these pompeous lunatic leftists who think they're being so droll by starting their comment with...Hmmm.

It just looks so stupid.

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | May 28, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Sestak said he was offered a JOB BY THE ADMINISTRATION. Clinton is NOT in the administration. Maybe Clinton did was said but there's much more to this story. Somebody is LYING.
A special prosecutor is needed before evidence is destroyed that then will need to be reconstructed for Watergate #2.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

A request of any Republicans who will listen:

On behalf of the majority of Americans who voted for this president in the hopes that he can dig us out of the massive whole Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan have put us in... do you think the GOP could maybe... just this once, while the Gulf coast is dying and Wall Street continues to rob us blind and ruin lives... can you PLEASE not drum up manufactured controversy and fake outrage to stop the leader of our country from working for the next two years or so to battle allegations and impeachment hearings, etc.?

Just this one time, can the Republicans think of what's good for America and not their party? Please?

Seriously, we really need a break. Please stop.

Posted by: bigfoot1 | May 28, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Washington Post has the courage to follow the story.

* What was the rest of the offer? Nobody backs away from a congressional position to take a non-pay advisor job. What else was on the table?

=====

You're trying to Fox News us here.

Nobody backed away from a Congressional position for a non-paying job. But you know that.

Clinton asked Sestak to stay in Congress and also accept an advisory position with the Obama admin.

But that doesn't fit with the story you want to believe so you change the facts.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Andrea KC, yes you indeed are a wizard of smart on that logic thing.

Except for the fact that Rahm Emmanuel cannot really offer top level positions, only Obama can.

Never mind that though, everyone should just believe them because democrats in power have no history of lies, corruption, scandal, or cover-up.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement."

Give. Me. A. Break.

"Complex situation"? 3+ months to get it straight? Is Cillizza a garden variety idiot or a paid shill for the administration?

Posted by: systrac3 | May 28, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Sestak said he was offered a JOB BY THE ADMINISTRATION. Clinton is NOT in the administration. Maybe Clinton did was said but there's much more to this story. Somebody is LYING.
A special prosecutor is needed before evidence is destroyed that then will need to be reconstructed for Watergate #2.

Posted by: jblast2000 | May 28, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Sestak: "... and, so, the White House offered me the job of Secretar..., uh, Sec, uh... Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Yeahhh, that's the ticket! And, uncompensated. So it wasn't really a job, you see,... statutorily speaking. In fact, I'm not even sure why I called it a job offer, last February - I must've been tired. Actually, Bill Clinton really just wanted to meet me,... yeah, but he needed some pretext, so he convinced the White House to let him offer me a not-really-a-job, in case I coincidentally decided to drop out of the primary, and needed something extra to do. Well, I hope this clears up everything, and we can put the whole thing to rest, and get back to the important work the American people elected us to do."

Posted by: limbolizard | May 28, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

For all of the Conservative blah, blah, blahs here, it was the Obama administration that didn't want the real LIBERAL guy to win. They wanted the ex-Republican. (Guess moderates have become Socialists by now.) I'm not sure any administration would have thought this a breach of transparency (because it wasn't.) I wonder if trying to persuade a candidate NOT to back out of running would be considered the same. Perhaps going to war on manufactured information might qualify (Iraq suddenly in bed with Al Qaeda or WMD). The American people are not going to lose sleep over this one. But that's not going to prevent a lot of grandstanding on the part of the weak GOP to make this into a mountain.

Posted by: jimsillan | May 28, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

George Bush did everything he could to avoid press conferences but he had THREE TIMES as many press conferences as Obama in the same time period.

Transparency?!
Hells bells! THAT ship sailed a long time ago!

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | May 28, 2010 5:58 PM

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Hmmm.... A few months ago those on the right were moaning and groaning that the President was on TV too much. They complained that he was in the news way to often. Now you haters are whining because he isn't in the news enough. Go figure.

Oh, and by the way George Bush probably had 3-5 times more vacations than President Obama too.

Posted by: catmomtx | May 28, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Is it just a coincidence that Mr. Obama had lunch with Mr. Clinton yesterday? How long have they been cooking this story up? You can bet if it were a REpublican lawmaker and a Republican President,the press wouldn't be buying this explanation.

Posted by: savvyj2 | May 28, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The people don't care about the Obama-Sestak connection.

They didn't car that Obama's best friend was a domestic terrorist................

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

William Ayers you're referring to, is also a Communist, please see his interview with the Communist's publication "The Revolution" in 2006, when Obama wasn't 8 years old, but a US Senator:

http://rwor.org/a/063/ayers-en.html

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If what Sestak says is true what he was offered was a little of nothing so why did they call in a former president to dffer it i really don't care because before now i thought this was the way washington was run but this doesn;t make sence.

Posted by: samuellenn | May 28, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I love Republican Logic:

We have no evidence that Obama did anything wrong, and this proves that Obama hid the evidence, so therefore Obama is guilty.

No wonder the Fox News can lead these gullible rubes around by the nose.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I do not understand why the Post has to continually play the media outlet for the Republicons. I call them cons because that what they do. They try to con the public into believing things that they know are untrue, have no basis in fact but if media like the Post keep reporting on it it becomes like you are endorsing their lies and distortions. What is really bad is you continue to keep writing about Issa, Palin and more. Good reporting would have investigated and not reported on these outright lies and distortion. Just because a Republicon makes some continual charges does not mean that you have the need to report on them. Please get back to the great newspaper that you once were and start investigating and calling to task the Republicons that believe that the politics of personal destruction is the only game in town.

Posted by: deminfl | May 28, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Trying to figure out who has the dumbest reporters the Enquirer or the Washington Post. Turns out that Enquirer actually makes money and the Wahington Post doesn't make any money. So if you're brainless idiot like Chris Cillizza the Post is your destination. They don't expect much from you or your retarded friends. Not even the ability to earn a living. Btw, I don't and will never pay for a newspaper. Hope these guys starve and have to pimp their kids for money. The internet rules, newspapers suck.

Posted by: rodneythecat | May 28, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Washington Post has the courage to follow the story.

* Rahm Emanuel didn't think this up on his own who were the "co-conspirators"?
* Who approved the scheme?
* How/why was Bill Clinton recruited?
* Specifically what position was offered and who approved it.
* What was the rest of the offer? Nobody backs away from a congressional position to take a non-pay advisor job. What else was on the table?
* Bill Clinton does nothing for free. What did he get for his involvement?

We have votes for judicial positions, votes for "government grants, votes for "in perpetuity", now an attempt to alter (rig?) an election. What else is hiding in the grass?

Posted by: FutureView2010 | May 28, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Why do you lefties do it, every single time? Why?

You circle the wagons around your sleazebags and act is if it's no big deal when caught red-handed.

====

So tell us your latest nut job conspiracy theory explaining why Bush didn't lie about the WMD.

Tell us why Diaper Dave Vitter should stay in office.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

".....using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability."
I had to page to the top to see who wrote this lie. If there is anything this administration lacks , it is transparency and accountability. What a joke. In fact this whole article is a joke--wasting internet bandwidth. Obama and Tiger now has something in common--caught with their pants down. How appropriate to call in Clinton!

Posted by: Bjorn3 | May 28, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The people don't care about the Obama-Sestak connection.

They didn't car that Obama's best friend was a domestic terrorist and they don't care what communist countries he visited on his Indonesian passport.

They didn't care that he is too inexperienced and has never run so much as a Burger King.

Heck, this clown was able to waltz into the White House without showing a valid birth certificate.

Posted by: Garland1 | May 28, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The people don't care about the Obama-Sestak connection.

They didn't car that Obama's best friend was a domestic terrorist and they don't care what communist countries he visited on his Indonesian passport.

They didn't care that he is too inexperienced and has never run so much as a Burger King.

Heck, this clown was able to waltz into the White House without showing a valid birth certificate.

Posted by: Garland1 | May 28, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Catmom:

you have quite a twisted mind. the republicans had not one single thing to do with this.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Gee, this is terrible. America is surely in a crisis now. Just as things were lookin' so good with degegulated BP's fashion statement on the Gulf. And ours on the bodies of the Afghan people. And the Iraqis.

A political job offer. My God. Who ever heard of it. When in our history did such a thing happen before. The president should be impeached immediately.

Clinton and Emmanuel should be exiled to the house next to Palin's (the other house).

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | May 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

A recent telephone conversation between the two White first Black Presidents:

Clinton: "Hey Barack, this is Bill. Say on that Sestak fellow in Pennsylvania running for Arlen's Senate seat, I think he serious. I told him that if "is" were to be "is" a possible really sweet federal non-paying job, wouldn't that be better, but he didn't really think so"!

Obama: "Just plug the damn hole!"

Clinton: "What that Barack, you know I'm good for that?"

Obama: "No not you Bill, some pesky advisers bothering me that Gulf Spill"

Clinton: "Now Barack, you can make some political hay out of that Gulf Spill crisis!"

Obama: "That my brilliant plan, Bill!"

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The people don't care about the Obama-Sestak connection.

They didn't car that Obama's best friend was a domestic terrorist and they don't care what communist countries he visited on his Indonesian passport.

They didn't care that he is too inexperienced and has never run so much as a Burger King.

Heck, this clown was able to waltz into the White House without showing a valid birth certificate.

Posted by: Garland1 | May 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Right...Am I supposed to believe them?
Come on. The only question is which one is worse: Hillary plus Bill or BO...I maintain it is the former, without hesitation.

Posted by: Mooshoo1 | May 28, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

How? Typical Republican BS. They are doing the same thing to Obama that they did to Clinton. Keep throwing stuff out there and hope that eventually something sticks. Are they helping to do anything for this country? NO. They have spent the past 17 months trying to destroy the President and his Presidency. Do they care about this country? NO. They only care about destroying the President so they can try and convince the American people that they have actually done something. Now the question is, how many gullible Obama haters will fall for this BS?

Posted by: catmomtx | May 28, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"SESTAK STORY CHALLENGES TRANSPARENCY VOW"?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't normally use so many capital letters but give us a break!
Any promise of transparency disappeared in the first week of the Obama presidency.
This is the most closed and secretive presidency since Richard Nixon.

George Bush did everything he could to avoid press conferences but he had THREE TIMES as many press conferences as Obama in the same time period.

Transparency?!
Hells bells! THAT ship sailed a long time ago!

Posted by: BruceMcDougall | May 28, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

and now we have folks actually suggesting that Clinton, Sestak and Obama actually got together and made up the entire Clinton call about the advisory appointment story out of hole cloth?

and that all three are dumb enough to believe that story would last a week if it weren't true and make all three political road-kill forever.

I don't think so.

that theory is right up there with the long form birth certificate

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 28, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

because it seems that Obama only committed a crime in rube reality, the wingnuts should impeach Obama there.

They look silly trying to do it here in objective reality.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

TomR3:

Plan to wake up Monday morning.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Ah, a Drudge link. I'm guessing it went up at 1:45 p.m. Well, good news for Fix Jr.'s college fund!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 28, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Is Obama trying to ruin the Clintons? It would almost seem so in roping the former President into something as clumsy and smelly (Chicago style) as this. Since the former president Clinton's intellect is supposed to be in reverse proportion to his morals it would seem something has happened to him as of late.

Posted by: ardysrp | May 28, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Dangling a job before a sitting Congressmen and former Vice-Admiral of the Navy, just to “GAUGE” if he’s serious type of guy?

Now, this endeavor was performed by a FORMER President of the USA who had to deal down with the lowly brother of a Congressman with an offer of a Federal Non-paying position?

"Is" that all it "is, is?"

It makes perfect non-problematic sense, now!

However, this is a wonderful solution to our spending and national debt crisis!

Federal Non-paying JOBS, ingenious!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

SESTAK SCANDAL GROWS...AND STILL STINKS

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on May 28, 2010

The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute.

But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel's request, he was Rahm's agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still "something of value" within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote.

And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter's vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate -- all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place.

In a previous column (read it at DickMorris.com) Dick and Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano suggest that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, now the Republican nominee for Governor, should empanel a grand jury to get to the bottom of this affair. Today's revelation makes this ever more urgent.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 28, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Federal law was clearly, intentionally broken. Try, convict, impeach everybody in sight. Obama, Clinton, TuTu Boy, et al.

Posted by: MITmike65 | May 28, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Why do you lefties do it, every single time? Why?

You circle the wagons around your sleazebags and act is if it's no big deal when caught red-handed.

-It doesn't convince anyone

-It makes you look worse because you have no standards

-It exposes your hypocrisy when you go nuts over some republican incident

-It makes the sleazebags look even sleazier that they have fawning fans and media willing to do anything to cover up.

Maybe some century you idiots will learn that this tactic does not work, and most often backfires.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

more evidence of romper room at the WH. Our sissy President manages to make a mess of even the smallest issues.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | May 28, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

whatever

Posted by: almafurnace | May 28, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Truly, this is what passes for journalism? Perhaps you should use a more appropriate title your by-line "The Fix Is In", or maybe make it a little more personal and simply call it "The Sycophant" or "The Partisan".
You might as well give it a little panache, none but the cognitive dissonants are going to think you have any commitment to the truth.

Posted by: finn43 | May 28, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't know which is funnier:

a. Dunderhead Cillizza suggesting this happens every day, or

b. Obumbler and company realizing they're is such trouble that they're bringing in bubba hillbilly to try and lie their way out of the felony.

What we know is:

a. somebody in the administration committed the felony and bubba is not in the administration, and

b. we'll have to wait until after November for the Republican majority to launch an appropriate investigation.

During the investigation, we'll find out if Obooboo and company can pull off the coverup or if this will be Oh!vomit's watergate.

It would be something for BO to have Jimmy Carter's economy, Bush's Katrina, and Nixon's watergate all in his first two years. The public would demand impeachment. We might just survive a half-term of Obungler.

Posted by: Max17 | May 28, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

How could it have possibly taken this long to come up with this load of crap? The stupidity of the average liberal is just astounding.

Posted by: bassassin | May 28, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Yep, you gotta be real careful about the facts when you want to publish lies, cause they'll eventually come back to haunt you.

That's the plan these days in the WH.

Posted by: apdseal | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Why are the wingnuts panting, bug eyed and shrieking?

Because if they can't manage to make a mountain out of this molehill, they will have to go back to claiming Obama was born in Kenya and waving around their forged birth certificate.

And I don't suppose that that sort of nonsense is very satisfying.

Posted by: Andrea_KC | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bribery is an impeachable offense. Now Obama and his criminal "partners" get together to discuss the obstruction of justice and to get their stories straight.

Posted by: ricardo4max | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bribery is an impeachable offense. Now Obama and his criminal "partners" get together to discuss the obstruction of justice and to get their stories straight.

Posted by: ricardo4max | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Bribery is an impeachable offense. Now Obama and his criminal "partners" get together to discuss the obstruction of justice and to get their stories straight.

Posted by: ricardo4max | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza, this all ya got?

You wanted out early for the holiday...phoned this in? What?
This ranks among the dumbest garbage of the day. EVEN the stupid tea party can't get their usual blah into it.

The Washington Post is increasingly nothing, third class.

Posted by: whistling | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza, this all ya got?

You wanted out early for the holiday...phoned this in? What?
This ranks among the dumbest garbage of the day. EVEN the stupid tea party can't get their usual blah into it.

The Washington Post is increasingly nothing, third class.

Posted by: whistling | May 28, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

On behalf of the American public, I would like to humbly apologize to you President Obama, that we the peasantry wrongly assume that governing and taking responsibility is part of your job. I apologize for the behavior of my fellow citizens and wish you and Michelle well as you enjoy the fruits of the presidency at taxpayer expense.

Posted by: shewholives | May 28, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Gotta say, this is much ado about nada. The offer to Sestak was absurdly modest given the kinds of deals, bribes, and worse that characterize the out-there-in-your-face, ain't-no-shame Washington wheeling and dealing.

How, for instance, do we continue to ignore Sen. Ben Nelson's agreement to support a version of the health care bill, notwithstanding his DECLARED obligation to the "bishops" when offered a one hundred dollar bribe for his cooperation? On how many levels does this stink, one might ask?

Clinton offers Sestak a job. Oh my.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | May 28, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse


Blind Ambition 2.0

Posted by: mtpeaks | May 28, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

POLITICIANS CUT BACKROOM DEAL!!!

In other news -

Sun rises in east: trend expected to continue ...

Posted by: round55 | May 28, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous concocted story! A phone call yesterday to Sestak's brother to relay what the storyline script was so Sestak could play along and the lunch yesterday between Obama and Clinton to get everyone on the same page of the fictional story.

This is just blatant. Nixon must be rolling in his grave if these crooks get away with this fish story.

Posted by: mark_neveu | May 28, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

You know what’s fascinating about this story?

Both Clinton and Obama have been called our first Black President, and both are still of the White race as well!

Truth is stranger than fiction, but one thing is for sure; nothing but fiction comes from the mouths of Clinton and Obama!


Posted by: theaz

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, we already had a first black President, didn't we?

http://sites.google.com/site/thecatbirdsnest/home/america-s-first-black-president-warren-g-harding


The truth is so inconvenient. It was then , and it is now.

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

But President Harding was a REPUBLICAN?

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

This is a big deal only for the journalists inside the beltway and for the GOP which is more interested in doing anything it can to harm this President than in moving this country forward constructively by dealing with real problems. Most of us are grown ups who live in the real world and understand exactly who is benefiting by making a "big deal" out of a nonevent.

Posted by: missgrace | May 28, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I do not think Obama started out to make the Fox Nation and Republicans look like fools, but he took advantage of the situation. Issa started screaming about impeachment, Cornyn went out looking for a tree and bought some rope, and Fox moaned 24/7. Who could not want to take advantage of Fox & Fiends under those circumstances. Put out the bait, set the hook and watch Issa & Cornyn squirm and jump. Fantastic Fishing Event. Want to see real pain...look at the comments on the Fox site, loathing and hatred, and 97% of the Fox audience ONLY NOW aware Obama made fools of them.....he certainly did but give Fox credit too.

Posted by: wmboyd | May 28, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Please wake me up when this becomes an actual story. Good Lord.

Posted by: TomR3 | May 28, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Looks like they released this explanation on Friday afternoon, before the first big holiday weekend, because they wanted everybody to hear it.


Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris Sillizza says that this is just a small thing. Attempting to bribe a Congressman to stay in a desperately needed safe seat , so an Obama "favorite" - turncoat from the Republican party, and best bet for the Democrats to hold the seat- and therefore influence a federal election that could well see a Republican takeover of the Senate, and "probable" impeachment proceedings against the President - is just a small thing. Wonder what this moron masquerading as a journalist considers a BIG thing. Oh Nixon's coverup of a minor breakin of a political office - that was a BIG thing. (it was actually - and the end result - impeacment[almost] and resignation were absolutely appropriate). The only thing that differentiates this is that we would be left with Yappy the Clown as president.

I really have to wonder just what all these apologists for this incompetant, arrogant lowlife that resides in the White House think they gain by their support. Has the US come to the point that the mindless, the idiots take over. Do these dimwits see themselves as the new leaders. And if they do take over completely, just what do they think they will be taking over. There will be nothing left. The North Korea of North America.

I'm not religious, but - GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Posted by: armagedon | May 28, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

BO's spin machine went line by line through the various crime statutes and synthesized a story, as best they could, that would get BO off the hook. They then brought in old bubba to play the bad guy because he is no longer a government employee. The lies of this administration are astounding, and they never quit coming. We need an independent counsel to investigate this situation and we need him/her NOW.

Posted by: boutros1 | May 28, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Seems like another columnist smokin' Obamajuana.

Some unpaid advisory deal is not a "job," and it would be an offer too lame to make to a candidate to get him to withdraw from a Senate race that he later won. If BJClinton knows anything it's politics, and he would not play the dummy to offer something so ridiculous.

All the delays and obfuscations (latest yesterday by Obama) allowed the fixers to make sure everyone will tell the same lie. This cock and bull story establishes three ways to claim no law was violated (a job offer would have clearly violated at least one law).

First, claim it was not a real job. Second, claim there was no contact between White House staff and the candidate. Third, claim that between the Rahmrod and Clinton, or Clinton and the candidate, there was a misunderstanding because no real offer was made.

Then everyone tell the same lie and let the story fade without evidence. Of course, the smell test is another matter. Unless you smoke Obamajuana.

Posted by: buchmann | May 28, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

BO's spin machine went line by line through the various crime statutes and synthesized a story, as best they could, that would get BO off the hook. They then brought in old bubba to play the bad guy because he is no longer a government employee. The lies of this administration are astounding, and they never quit coming. We need an independent counsel to investigate this situation and we need him/her NOW.

Posted by: boutros1 | May 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Sestak is now a marked man.......no Dem is going to want to be his friend.......He's bound to be at the bottom of the Dem totem pole.....unless he signed on as a LIAR to cover Obama's butt!!!!

Posted by: chukkalady | May 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

And this is news? Is this what you and your employer call journalism? You and the Post are collaborators in the destruction of American communal politics. Jive up all the conflict to destroy Obama by any means. Go for it, but it is stupid, it is un-American and it sucks.

Posted by: walden1 | May 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

You know what’s fascinating about this story?

Both Clinton and Obama have been called our first Black President, and both are still of the White race as well!

Truth is stranger than fiction, but one thing is for sure; nothing but fiction comes from the mouths of Clinton and Obama!


Posted by: theaz

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, we already had a first black President, didn't we?

http://sites.google.com/site/thecatbirdsnest/home/america-s-first-black-president-warren-g-harding


The truth is so inconvenient. It was then , and it is now.

Posted by: dottydo | May 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

This column pretends the administration explanation leaves no reason for doubt. Hey, it happens every day! What a joke! Sestak didn't say he was offered an "unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board", he said he was offered a JOB. He would not have used that term if the White House simply offered him a seat on a board, unpaid no less. You media hacks will pretend this bogus explanation is enough reason for you to move on, but you and EVERY liberal out there reading this know that if this were a republican administration, this paper and every other media outlet would be talking about this 24/7, and jeering the administration for attempting such a lame and obviouse lie for an explanation.

Posted by: joeybintx | May 28, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

The Secret Service's new code name for Obama has been changed from POTUS (President of the United States) to LOTUS (Liar of the United States).

Posted by: shastinaguy | May 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

We are now supposed to believe 'I did not have sex with that woman' Slick Willie Clinton. Maybe when they had lunch, Obama got the coffee for him?

Like they always say - It is easier to tell the truth as once you begin to lie you need more and more of them.

With respect to Sestak, an ex-Admiral who once was sworn to uphold the Constitution, he is just like the rest of these crooks. I wonder if Clinton had his blue suit on when they had their conversation?

Posted by: BigLouie | May 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on."

So, the 1.5 page document is the result of this "exhaustive review" and is "detailed." Huh. Really, now.

Chris, you might want to go back to these anonymous sources who described this document to you and ask them to explain the discrepancy.

Posted by: GSS1 | May 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Political views aside, how in the world can anyone, not demand an investigation ? I'm torn apart ! Should I be awestruck towards your loyalty to President Obama ? Or rather inwardly disturbed at the existance of such 'useful idiots'? I have to face myself at the end of the day. As the Bard penned 'To thine own self be true' I must honor truth before even my commander in chief. Damn it man ! Dont throw a rock then hide your hand ! God have Mercy on US !

Posted by: Kracker1 | May 28, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

julie what the hell are you talking about

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that either Sestak is a liar and made the illegal job offer all up--which is not likely--or someone very close to Comrade Obama is. And, since that someone had to have the OK from Comrade Obama to even make such an offer, then Comrade Obama must have known about it and had ageed to the deal.
So now, according to Comrade Obama (who'se been huddling with a dozen or so of his WH lawyers, advisors, and fellow low-lifes for about 10 days now, to come up with some kind of a plausable story) we're supposed to believe that what went down, and what everyone with any common sense knows was a crooked Chicago--style deal, wasn't a crooked Chicago--style deal at all, but just some innocent political deal that EVERYBODY DOES!
So let me get this straight. Comrade Obama and the Democrap Socialist Party urge Republican Sen. Arlen Speter to switch parties, in order to give them a 60 vote veto-proof Senate, promising him that they'll all support him for re-election, over any other Democrap Socialist candidate in Pa. The Democrap Socialist Party National Committee promise Specter that if he becomes a Democrap Socialist, he'll get DSNC campaign cash big-time and their full support--practically assuring Specter the Democrap Socialist nomination. Comrade Obama puts the icing on the cake/deal, by promising Specter that if he switches, he (Comrade Obama) will come to Pennsylvania and campaign for him exclusively, tacidly assuring Specter that all his tribal members will all vote for him. Arlen Specter agrees, and switches parties. Come election time though, there's a problem. Sestak refuses to drop out and give Specter an open field. What to do? In order to get rid of Sestak, and keep his promise to Specter to have a clear field, Comrade Obama using his WH Kapo Rahm Emanuel, offer Sestak a top job in the Comrade Obama administration (probably Sec. of the Navy). Had Sestak taken the illegal job offer, no outsider would ever have known about it. The problem arose when Sestak refused the job offer and squeeled on the illegal deal (probably because he was pi**ed off for not being supported by the DSNC and Comrade Obama). And now that the do-do has hit the fan, all the Obama--worshippers here, and in the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media are circling the wagons to protect their guy. It doesn't matter to them that the law was broken, or that a bunch of sleezy Nixonesque slimeballs were selling jobs for political reasons, all that matters to them is that Comrade Obama is their guy, and he has to be protected. These same scumbags would go balistics if a Republican had done the same thing.
Note too:
Blago allegedly did the same as Comrade Obama and Kapo Rahm Emmanuel did, and he's on trial for it.
This Sestak job offer needs to be investigated by a Special Procecutor, just like the Scooter Libby and Valeri Plame cases were.

Posted by: armpeg | May 28, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

This a simple case of following the MONEY. Hillary Clinton is in debt for over $3 million for the 2008 presidential campaign.

In steps, Bill Clinton, listen Barack.

I will help you clear up this Sestak mess, if you will help by beloved Hillary pay off her campaign debts.

Obama, that sounds good to me.

Bill Clinton takes the fall.

Posted by: az-heat | May 28, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Sestak has been forced to confirm Obama's lies under threats of Obama campaigning for him.

Posted by: shastinaguy | May 28, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Nutjob n. [slang] A name used for anyone possessing common sense, good judgement, and personal responsibilty. Commonly used by lefties on message boards to make the normal seem abnormal.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I wonder just why Mr. Sestak himself made such an issue of it. Looking for votes? Even against his "own" party it seems very suggestive of something; I liked him well enough until he appeared to imply that he was so important that the White House would attempt to bribe him. I find fault with him for bringing it up in the first place and then refusing to make an honest statement, as if he is covering up for someone. And for those of you who continue to make an issue of the White House not speaking up, would you wish to call out someone in your party during election time?

Posted by: julieforBarack | May 28, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Royalty - they are always above the law.

Posted by: JAM-VA | May 28, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

You know what’s fascinating about this story?

Both Clinton and Obama have been called our first Black President, and both are still of the White race as well!

Truth is stranger than fiction, but one thing is for sure; nothing but fiction comes from the mouths of Clinton and Obama!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

jasper:

thanks for clearing it up for us idiots. it's obvious now after your clarification that it would make total sense for someone to drop out of a senate race, in order to work more for zero pay.

without your clarification, this may have seemed unlikely. And even unlikelier still, that it would take them so long to explain what happened. But you have made it all so clear.

now we can go back to enjoying the "less than 8%" unemployment that we got for the bargain price of just $1,000,000,000,000

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

PBLOTTO....


Yes, this was never talked about before Obama....

Ignorance and arrogance.....

trademarks of the liberal.

Posted by: yukon672004 | May 28, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

With the oil spill, a shakey conomy,and two wars, why do we allow the side shows to distract us from the really important issues? It is advertising dollars, circulation, and ratings that are important and not the serious issues. I think the Repubicans have honed this into a regular cottage industry that attracts reports like honey attracts flies. Sad comentary on the state of the press.

Posted by: willin46 | May 28, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

lOL.....TWO "SLICKS" IN ONE DAY!!!! Like we're going to believe Slick Willie offered Sestak a "non-paying part-time" job to stay out of the race........RIGHT!!! And why didn't Rahm call Sestak instead of having Slick do it? This smells to high heaven of CHICAGO AND SLICK POLITICS!!!

Posted by: chukkalady | May 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

What a slimy trio, Obama, Clinton, and Emanuel. God, please help our nation.

Posted by: walterndebby | May 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I wonder where all you conservatives and Republicans were when Bush, Rove, Cheney & Co. were claiming "executive privilege" to stonewall on every one of their dirty games from outing CIA agents and manipulating intelligence to using the DOJ to punish political opponents and letting oil companies dictate the level of regulation (or lack thereof) that actually led to the disaster in the Gulf?

Posted by: jbentley4 | May 28, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Come on now folks, it's just business as usual here, move along, nothing to see. Politicians are supposed to tell the truth and represent their constituents? What?

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman, err, well yes I did, I just mispoke.

Blumenthal: I was in Vietnam, well, errr, except that I wasn't, I mean, you know, it was just a few misplaced words, you know, like that NOT word, as in I was not in Vietnam, because I am a lying slimeball.

Sestak: This one is going to put the first 2 to shame.

Politics as usual, disgusting.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris Cizzilla. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? LOL

Posted by: hz9604 | May 28, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This became a scandal because it involved Democrats. After 8 years of ignoring criminal behavior by Bush, Cheney and the rest of the torture loving thugs in the last Republican administration, a Democrat is back in office, and every burp, gaffe or misunderstanding is a major scandal. The behavior of the Washington elite press corps, and the angry white hate machine in this is disgusting.

Posted by: pblotto | May 28, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Mommas, don't let your children grow up to be liberals.

Posted by: Cornell1984


Sure, repukes are so much better. I think not Cornhole...........oops, Cornell. They either play footsy in the bathroom or cheat on their wives. Mommas love that!

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

As we can see by the repetitive actions of this president, it doesn't matter WHAT the issue is, his response is simply inexperienced incompetence. How's that for hope and change!

Posted by: NCMike | May 28, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse


This one's really getting fun to watch now that Bill Clinton is involved. Did they bring the old Perjurer-In-Chief into the picture to add credibility to their story? Oops - spill #2 may be bigger than spill #1 - maybe even bigger than Watergate. Yee Haw! These Progressives are SO entertaining - and SO in control. Enjoy them while it lasts - November is quickly approaching.

Posted by: poplab | May 28, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Liberal senators from embellishment -- Sestak about Job offers and Blumenthal about Vietnam.

Pukes.

Posted by: Cornell1984


Republican senators from ill repute -- Ensign (screw your friend's wife) and Vitter (nice diapers with the prostitute).

Great examples for the family values voters.

Now those are pukes.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Have all of you turned so numb as to ignore when something is against the law or how about just plain wrong? This is a felony. You cannot offer anything whether a job or position and this carries prison time in exchange to get someone to drop out of a Senate race. This is an alleged crime and all the parties are attempting to get their stories in line with one another. This is sad because the story they are giving just does not make sense and is testament to the low characters who hold office. They think that it is just perfectly fine to lie, cheat, rush bills through, hide bills so no one can read them, double talk the stupid press, hide behind closed doors locking the opposition out and telling the puppy dog press you are reaching out, giving fraudulent numbers and figures on bills, pushing a no jobs bill at the worst possible time in our economy watching without feeling the little families struggling just to survive, pushing a health care takeover that did not cuts costs and will add to our mounting deficit, and watch with little feeling as wildlife dies choking, a precious ecosystem is being destroyed leaving more to be out of work, destroying the dollar with all this debt. I find this disgusting to think they can buy a place for a weasel like Spector to have their filibuster buster proof Senate and I as a citizen demand there be an independent counsel to investigate these allegations. Who in the world do these thugs think they are?

Posted by: greatgran1 | May 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I just watched Rep. Sustak answer questions about being offered a job by the Obama Administration. I feel that he is lying. Why would anybody think that Sustak would give up his Representative job and not run for Senator for a non-paying board job. It just does not make sense!

Posted by: gregskya | May 28, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

When there is no real way to lie out of a situation, it can lead to the lie sounding ridiculously absurd. That is what is happening here. Sestak is lying, lying, lying. Why is he lying? It is painfully obvious that he is lying. Why? Should he not have to tell us why he is lying, because he is a congressman? Does that excuse you from telling a big lie to the entire nation? Democrat lemmings seem to think so.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Who would elect Joe Sestak as senator if he believes a "High Level Job" = unpaid advisory board member.

Chicago corruption meets Philly corruption, and one can only watch in amazement.

Mommas, don't let your children grow up to be liberals.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 28, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. I hope they got their stories straight. Kindest Regards Zulu2

Posted by: Zig2 | May 28, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Liberal senators from embellishment -- Sestak about Job offers and Blumenthal about Vietnam.

Pukes.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 28, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

In a related note Willy also called LeBron James at the behest of the Cleveland Cavaliers owner and offered to give LeBron a position directing traffic at all Cavs games next year if he would stop playing Basketball. Despite this real great offer LeBron has reportedly refused this most generous offer.

Posted by: fe59 | May 28, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

You Chris need a life - I generally like your reporting but this is trash. Move on to something of importance - Oh, I don't know, oil, korea, euro... I'm sure something is going on in the world.

I know, how about some attention to the DINO human waste Jimbo Webb? Hates the gays.

Posted by: mjcc1987 | May 28, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

What kind of censorship has come to the WaPo? Please tell me how my previous comment violated any of the rules.

Posted by: ardysrp | May 28, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

The more I think about this, the more it seems fishy. A job that does not involve pay, to drop a bid for the senate? There is a lot of lying going on here. Nothing to see here, just move on, politics as usual. Doesn't matter if they committed a crime, it is politics as usual. Politics as usual is coming to an end. We have got to put an end to a permanent political elite class in this country, who are above the law. These guys make the infamous robber barons of the turn of the 19th century seem like kids running a corner lemonade stand charging 12 cents a lemonade when the going rate is 10 cents. This administration is the slimiest thing I have ever seen.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

May 2010 will -- from a historical point -- probably be the pivotal point for the demise of Obama's political career:

* Going against his on people in favor of illegal immigrants (the Arizona case)
* The total ineptness of leadership in the Gulf Oil spill -- for Pete's sake, he didn't even know the status of the Director of MMS on May 27, OR he was telling an "Obama Tale"
* Failed to provide caring leadership to the devastation in Nashville -- 30 American lives lost
* Showed his political priorities in forcing the policy on 'Gays in the Military' before impact studies had been completed by the Pentagon
* And the Sestak mess.

WHO CAN NOW TRUST OBAMA AND THE UNtrustworthy Gang from Chicago??

Obama has done it to himself, and he can't blame Bush!

He is really beginning to look pretty idiotic. Think it is sad -- he had such an opportunity, but has now blown it! He has to be a LEADER -- NOT A TIN HORN DICTATOR!

Posted by: wheeljc | May 28, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

In a related not Will also called LeBron James at the behest of the Cleveland Cavaliers owner and offered to give LeBron a position directing traffic at all Cavs games next year if he would stop playing Basketball. Despite this real great offer LeBron has reportedly refused this most generous offer.

Posted by: fe59 | May 28, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

how did this become such a big deal??

Who said if elected he would have the most ethical and transparent WH in history?

Let me refresh your memories, IT WAS OBLAMA!!!!

Oblama has not kept ONE of his campaign promises, most were broken within days of the inauguration, but Dims keep supporting him! now he has Clinton involved, what a HOOT! bring on the blue dress, Bill!!

Posted by: morphy | May 28, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

How does a "job" (Sestak's continued statements)...segue to an "unpaid Board appointment" (the White House and NOW Sestak too).....sounds like the two have discussed it and come up with a way to (maybe!) mitigate the damage. What did they promise Sestak?....a visit by President Obama perhaps? THAT worked well for Spector!

Posted by: voter1 | May 28, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

This is bs!

Posted by: kwrichardsonii

I'd have to agree; if there's anyone who knows bs, it's republikans and t party nutjobs.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I think it is admirable of the Republicans that they were able to wait nearly 18 months before they launched their first phony investigation of this Democratic president.

In the Clinton years, we had already had the farcical Trooper'gate,' the dead-end Travel Office Affair, the fantastic and expensive Whitewater Thing and the bizarre Hilary's Beef Futures Business by this point in the administration.

The GOP should be congratulated for suppressing their innate ability to make something out of nothing for so long.

This current teapot scandal includes such stunning facts as:
* Ronald Reagan did what the GOP thinks Obama did.

* You can't trade 'stepping down' for 'a job,' since to take the job, you've got to step down in the first place.

* It wasn't a 'job,' anyway - it was an appointment that would have probably cost Sestak time and money to fulfill.

* Sestak said no, anyway.

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | May 28, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The idiocy (and yes, I mean idiocy, normally I at least show political opponents some respect) continues. There is no crime here, and to even mention impeachment will just destroy any election hopes you guys might have just like it did when you tried to sandbag Clinton in the 1990's.

1. Sec 600 is punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail if you refuse to pay. Doesn't sound like the punishment for a 'high crime or misdemeanor'

2. It is contingent on soliciting the person 'as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party.' To offer a job to pre-empt someone from running has nothing to do with supporting or opposing a candidate UNLESS it was also conditional (and explicit) to the offer that he endorse Specter's re-election nor is inaction considered political activity (which is campaigning, not not campaigning).

Please, PLEASE run the rest of the year on "IMPEACH OBAMA" over this stupid non-issue. It's the best election year gift the Dems could get.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

2010 Platform?????????????

Impeachment & Prosecution!!!!!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

This story as reported by Mr. Cillizza is an insult to the intelligence of your readers. Are we really to believe that all that was offered to Mr. Sestak was an "unpaid" position of a board and for this he was expected to drop out? How now Brown cow? Does the plain, unvarnished truth take redo after redo and finally lawyering? This is rock bottom for even an Obama apologist such as Chris Cillizza. Get real!

Posted by: ardysrp | May 28, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"The Fix"- wow, what an appropriate name for this cover-up article. The Washington Post is truly pathetic the way they obfuscate willingly for this White House. This one stinks in spades. I can't believe anybody who is a legitimate"journalist" is buying this story and writing an article such as this. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when we really need them?

Where is investigative journalistic integrity and a search for the TRUTH?? How many lies is the mainstream press going to let this guy get away with just because his liberal politics match theirs and he has a "D" after his name?

Doesn't it bother you guys when you look in the mirror and see what you have become to cover up these lies you are attempting to feed us from this bunch of Chicago corrupt pols? This article attempts to turn pond scum into perrier, and folks, it ain't working. Don't insult our intelligence. "Nothing to see here but a PR problem" INDEED. I don't THINK so!

Posted by: Txpose | May 28, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

This is bs!

Posted by: kwrichardsonii | May 28, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Plug the damn hole. Impeach Obama.

Posted by: ac7880 | May 28, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

From what I have seen of him, I personally think Mr. Obama is a decent and respectable man who no more wishes harm to this country anymore than I do, however, it does seem to me that more and more each day he wishes he wasn't the president either. Have you noticed how gray he has become in so short a time? Possibly, deep thinkers should stick to an advisory position!?!

He does seem to enjoy the best of the job through. Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, he seems aloof at best. Only much too eager to pass the job[s] along to another so they can fail instead. I could site you many examples, but I do not get paid to type.

Okay, one! Going to SF to some plant about to open all the while helping another to champaign ~ Ms. "don't call me Mame" Boxer . . . . I still can not believe that one, but I digress. Yes! I'm green ~ chest thump, or two . . . costing employees to lose a days pay only because there isn't enough time to do background checks. Is he that paranoid that a union laborer would do him in? Or, some high school kid for that matter . . . Maybe he doesn't want the workers there so they won't ask him any questions???

And, to go back a bit further, to pick out a and openly attack a news agency is so far beyond acting stupidly I can not even comment on it. But when the White House press pool starts to complain too . . . something is every wrong somewhere.

"Obama brand: transparency and accountability . . " I think that was a wreck before, as you say, "Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident . . . " I openly laugh at that. Your auditioning for SNL now? Are things going so badly at the Post these days . . excuse me, I just laughed again.

I really do not intend to be this rude. Saturday Night Live will never have you. I've never sought to post my opinion on a major site such as the WP's. I'm not the lowbrow tongue-lasher that too many that do post are these days. That should worry many in Washington, but it does not. They really do not care at all. Party first attitude is what is sinking them. And Mr. Cillizza, it's sinking you as well. Just saying.

I sincerely do pray for Mr. Obama for GOD to give him wisdom and strength to lead our nation in the most of trying times, for sure. I did the very same for Mr. Bush as well. And I will do this up until 2012 when we can elect a competent replacement, ah, men!

And, I will say a pray for you Mr. Cillizza too. That you'll find the wisdom to write competent stories! May GOD bless you Sir!


Posted by: dalew_pitt | May 28, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

This is about much of nothing... People are trying to discredit the President any way they can... It show how small minds there are... ah's and pk's....

Posted by: kwrichardsonii | May 28, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I just got through watching the press conference with Sestak. He seemed very nervous and I would be willing to wager a large sum that he is lying. He also seems very phony. If there is any Republican running against him that can speak in public without coming off as a total phony, Sestak is going to get a whoopin in Nov.

Posted by: hyperionxvii | May 28, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Its going to make more than this puff story to convince thinking folks, there was no paid job offer. This falls in line with Chicago style of gang politics. obama is a liar and as soon as voters figure this out, the better off we will all be.

Posted by: Macksfield | May 28, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

So Barack Obama used the one man who is even more immoral than he is, Bill Clinton.

I'm wondering: What is the payoff for Bill and Hillary Clinton? What did s/he ask for?

Posted by: Azarkhan | May 28, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

why did an explanation take months to formulate if it's this simple and innocuous? (it's not simple and innocuous)

Why couldnt Obama answer the simple questions this week when posed to him? (slippery slope to use words unscripted...just GET OUT OF THE ROOM without talking about it)

How come sestak didnt just say so when confronted? (he knew the risk of speaking)

why would the obama admin think he would back out of a key Senate race to take a no pay job? (it probably wasnt a no pay job)

doesnt all add up...even when i give all parties the benefit of the doubt.

it's going to be fun to see the press cover for these guys now...."no story here, move along..."

Posted by: capntrips | May 28, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

This article alone is an insult to the intelligence of the average American. Are we really to believe that all that was offered to Mr. Sestak was an "unpaid" position on a board and for this he would drop out? How now Brown cow? Also does the simple truth have to be worked and reworked and lawyered? Come-on Mr. Callizza, as an apologist for Pres Obama you can surely do much better. Where are all those great Washington brains?

Posted by: ardysrp | May 28, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

18 U.S.C. § 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

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


GUILTY!

IMPEACH OBAMA, NOW!!!

Posted by: maliknidal | May 28, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House... "

Yeah, a Chicago thug style White House. This all stinks to high heaven. Unpaid job my a55. If Bubba is involved, this won't end well.

Posted by: BadNews | May 28, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I'll have to hand it to the DemocRats and Obama!

This is a wonderful solution to our spending and national debt crisis!

Federal Non-paying JOBS, ingenious!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

NEW NAME FOR OBAMA SUPPORT OF DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES' RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

"TOP KILL"

Posted by: joelevin | May 28, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

NEW NAME FOR OBAMA SUPPORT OF DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES' RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

"TOP KILL"

Posted by: joelevin | May 28, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"I did not have relations with Congressman Sestak. I never asked anyone to lie, and I am going back to work for the American people." My goodness, couldn't Obama find a better front man than a convicted lying philanderer? As Obama's priest of 20 years would say, "His chickenssssss are coming home to ROOST!"

Posted by: JOERICH741 | May 28, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"I did not have relations with Congressman Sestak. I never asked anyone to lie, and I am going back to work for the American people." My goodness, couldn't Obama find a better front man than a convicted lying philanderer? As Obama's priest of 20 years would say, "His chickenssssss are coming home to ROOST!

Posted by: JOERICH741 | May 28, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"We DID NOT have sex with that man, Mr. Sestak!"
signed, Barry, Billy, Emanny, the holy spirit.

Posted by: joelevin | May 28, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

November 2010 is looking better and better. Pat Toomey must be loving this news story. His whole campaign has just been written for him by Rahm and the Obama flunkies. Anyone in PA who would vote for Sestak now must drink the Obama koolaid on a daily basis. The stench of this back room deal will all but permeate the senatorial election in PA. Toomey should start picking out his drapes for his new office tomorrow!

Posted by: jeiken | May 28, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

EVERYDAY it's something new with Barry-the-Clown. All of it not good for this country. To quote Obama's Black Liberation Theology pastor: "The chickens are coming home to roost". Bubba as the fall guy for Barry? Really??

Posted by: olliecoco | May 28, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

An exhaustive review? Getting the story straight should have taken no more than three phone calls. What could possibly have taken all this time to verify?

Posted by: mnm619 | May 28, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It'd be comical to see Cletus still clenching his teeth over BJgate and a lie in response to prurient curiosity, while keeping mum about another President who *lied the nation into war* and got thousands of troops pointlessly killed.

Naah, no double standard here.

This is National Enquirer / Star level reporting.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 28, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Dangling a job before a sitting Congressmen and former Vice-Admiral of the Navy, just to “GAUGE” if he’s serious type of guy?
Now this task is being performed, by a FORMER President of the USA who had to deal down with the lowly brother of a Congressman?

"Is" that all it "is, is?"

It makes perfect non-problematic sense!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

jrm2


EVERYONE seems to be against your position... again.

This is an impeachable offense

IT IS A DISGRACE THAT OBAMA IS BEING ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE HIMSELF - AND COME UP WITH THIS LAME COVER-UP.

The American Public deserves better.

Don't forget Obama promised to do things differently in Washington - add that to the pile of Obama's lies.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 28, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Unpaid advisory role in exchange for dropping out of the race??????

I Bet Obama Actually Expects Us To Believe That Ridiculous Excuse!!!!!!!

Posted by: dcunning30 | May 28, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."

Wrong, you make something out of nothing, by acting innocent when you're guilty!!!!

Posted by: BelenGadfly | May 28, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

This version of the WH story is calling Sestak a liar; and I guess he's a willing stooge at this point.
If that is the case the WH better hope Sestak wins in November.
After all the comments that Sestak made to every cable and news orgainization that would listen to him pre-primary election regarding the fact that the WH had contacted him and offered a "job" to keep him out of the Senate race, this WH counsel release does not square.
If this version were true the WH would have leaked relevant contrary information to the closest new organization during the primary election to discredt Sestak and assist Specter in winning the race.
Why if this WH version was true didn't they offer this simple explanation sooner?
I bet that the WH hoped that Specter would win the race and make the story irrelevant.
It is still relevant, and this concocted WH - Bill Clinton version of the story is not going to help the WH cause to brush it under the rug.

Posted by: jamato1 | May 28, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

NYCLefty:

Mitch 52- clearly you have a foggy memory- it was W who had the 8 balls- for real- he had a coke and alcohol problem-

------------------------------------------------
And your Marxist Moonbat bought "Blow" whenever he could get it, according to his own words. Libs are always throwing stones in glass houses....their own!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

From most of the comments here, I'm in good company in not accepting this version of the "truth" the White House is "selling."

Rahm Emanuel doesn’t send “oblique” messages nor would he seriously offer an “unpaid” position on an advisory board in exchange for dropping out of a senatorial primary. Next he’ll be telling us it was really a guided tour of the White House or a visit to Kings Dominion he offered.

My name might be ethnic but I didn’t just roll off the boat last night.

Posted by: A-COL | May 28, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Since we are investigating just about everything, I think this also deserves investigation. It doesn't matter which party you belong to or whether or not a current president or politician did the same thing, or whether or not it has always been done. If it is in fact a crime, then someone should have to pay the fine or do the time.

Posted by: floridamom1 | May 28, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Had it been Bush, he would have been "Fixed" long ago.

Posted by: JAH3 | May 28, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Where was Bubba when this story first broke. Weeks later we are suppose to believe the words of guy who got impeached for lying under oath. I think not! Democrat scum at its best.

Posted by: theBozyn | May 28, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama is undermining Democracy. Here's how it works. You have a new commer fight his way into a primary against one of the good old boys. Once the race is clearly between just the two, then you put out all kinds of offers to make the new comer go away, thus effectively removing CHOICE from YOU THE VOTER.

Nice.

Posted by: bvdon | May 28, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It's really too comical to see so many of the posters get the facts incorrect. Just shows they didn't even bother to read CC's post.

Let's be clear, Sestak was offered an unpaid advisory role that was to be in ADDITION to him remaining a congressmen.

Idiots.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

So...an accomplished liar is conferring with a pathological liar, to "beat the reap." Obama continues to show is disdain for America, lack of integrity, and incompetence.
I just shake my head and wait for another election. Hopefully, by 2013 his name will only be an answer in Trivial Pursuit.

Posted by: jiji1 | May 28, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

"Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- ..."

Given what we have just been told, could someone explain how the situation was "complex?" If what we have been told is true, Emmanuel asked Clinton to try and bribe Sestak with some ceremonial post in lieu of running against Specter. Clinton asked Sestak's brother, who asked Sestak.

Clinton obviously remembers what he was told by Emmanuel and what he said to Sestak's brother. So what is COMPLEX?

The answer is there is no "complexity" that requires months to get "all the facts" straight. What obviously happened is that a straightforward bribe was offered, and declined. What actually has been "complex" is figuring out how to cover all that up.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | May 28, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody think that Sen. Specter's team is not involved with fanning the flames of this--behind the scenes?

He didn't stay in the Senate all this time by being a choir boy. Need I remind you of that famous line from James Bond's "Dr. No" (What the acronym "SPECTRE" means....)

Posted by: circlesandarrows | May 28, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

LETS JUST HAVE AN SPECIAL INVESTIGATION...

AFTER ALL, THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE
HERE THAN WAS AT THE NIXON WATERGATE INVESTIGATION...???

AND, THIS 'IS' A FELONY AND ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY OR 'GAIN' FOR SUCH WHEELING AND DEALING SUCH AS THIS, IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR, PLEASE.

WE KNOW DARN WELL THAT YOU CANNOT BELIEVE OR TRUST "CLINTON", "OBUMBER", "RAHM THE INTIMADOR EMANUAEL"... AND NOW WE ALL KNOW SESTAK IS AN IDIOT... AND CANNOT KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.

CHICAGO POLITICS AWASH IN WASHINGTON.

Posted by: jesekroadrunnercom | May 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious? .."Republicans ... using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability." Obama has made a travesty of transparency and accountability. He is the opposite of everything he claims to be. He and his band of "merry, airy Marxists" are determined to destroy the country. And the fawning media are helping them do it.

Posted by: Gammakozy | May 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I went to the store and some dude named

Chrissy Fox

had already bought up every hamster and gerbil in the country.

Posted by: bumblingberry


You should be nicer to foxy, dingleberry, he wipes the floor with you every time you try to debate him.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

A recent telephone conversation between the two White first Black Presidents:

Clinton: "Hey Barack, this is Bill. Say on that Sestak fellow in Pennsylvania running for Arlen's Senate seat, I think he serious. I told him that if "is" were to be "is" a possible really sweet job, wouldn't that be better, but he didn't really think so"!

Obama: "Just plug the damn hole!"

Clinton: "What that Barack, you know I'm good for that?"

Obama: "No not you Bill, some pesky advisers bothering me that Gulf Spill"

Clinton: "Now Barack, you can make some political hay out of that Gulf Spill crisis!"

Obama: "That my brilliant plan, Bill!"

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

(In a slobbering, kneecap sucking, effeminate, barney frankish voice) "Aww gee guys, that explains it all! I just wish you guys would have just said something sooner! I was almost forced to write something about this in the papers! Aww gee - well thanks for the heads up there guys! It's just a silly misunderstanding! Now I can go back to ignoring Obama's Katrina!!!"

Posted by: ihatethepost1 | May 28, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

My God, how stupid do they think we are?

==

You shouldn't hand out such a tempting opener. I choose to leave it where shat.

This non-story is only persisting because gossip columnists like OGH live for web hits, and it riles up those old guys with teabags dangling from their Cat Diesel caps.

In the end it's Adm. Sestak against that C4G Toomey nut job.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 28, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Masterful. Not one "b" word. BRIBE. funny how important it is to be a statist and not have the laws apply to oneself.

Posted by: englmetzgr | May 28, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

A recent telephone conversation between the two White first Black Presidents:

Clinton: "Hey Barack, this is Bill. Say on that Sestak fellow in Pennsylvania running for Arlen's Senate seat, I think he serious. I told him that if "is" were to be "is" a possible really sweet job, wouldn't that be better, but he didn't really think so"!

Obama: "Just plug the damn hole!"

Clinton: "What that Barack, you know I'm good for that?"

Obama: "No not you Bill, some pesky advisers bothering me that Gulf Spill"

Clinton: "Now Barack, you can make some political hay out of that Gulf Spill crisis!"

Obama: "That my brilliant plan, Bill!"

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

WATERGATE was a small thing turned into a big thing.

THIS is a big thing (Election tampering, bribery) which the media is trying to position as a small thing.

Posted by: _buster | May 28, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I dont buy this story one bit. Something really smells. Who the heck takes an unpaid job vs a possible Senate seat? Anyone who believes this story probably believes in the tooth fairy

Posted by: jerseyjoe99982002 | May 28, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Another CROCK! If there was any way on earth the Dems could have Impeached George W. Bush they would have done it with huge smiles on their smarmy faces! They didn't resist out of their "patriotism." lol.....This is hilarious!


Posted by: priley8104


Not when you've got a proven nutjob like cheney waiting in the wings to assume the presidency if bush was impeached. Then you would have had to impeach cheney too for his crimes.

Now that would have been interesting..........President Pelosi.

The Dems made a difficult choice and decided to hold their nose and let bush finish out his term. Hell, he was already mailing it in by that point in his presidency anyway. He couldn't accomplish much of anything spending all his time in Crawford.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I dont buy this story one bit. Something really smells. Who the heck takes an unpaid job vs a possible Senate seat? Anyone who believes this story probably believes in the tooth fairy!

Posted by: jerseyjoe99982002 | May 28, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I dont buy this story one bit. Something really smells. Who the heck takes an unpaid job vs a possible Senate seat? Anyone who believes this story probably believes in the tooth fairy!

Posted by: jerseyjoe99982002 | May 28, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh, please! Even if this story were true---and it isn't---the reality is that the White House evidently thinks Congressman Sestak is pretty stupid: he'll take an invisible, non-paying advisory job that means nothing---in addition to serving as a congressman---if he'll just abandon his senate aspirations. Oh, please!

Posted by: msrader44 | May 28, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Mitch 52- clearly you have a foggy memory- it was W who had the 8 balls- for real- he had a coke and alcohol problem- not just in your vast right wing imagination... and as far as I know, interns at the White House are not hookers.

Posted by: NYClefty | May 28, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

My God, how stupid do they think we are? You people should be outraged that they think you're stupid to believe this flimsy story Obumbler has come up with no matter what party you belong to?

This is what they want us to believe after more than a week of stalling. I am fuming that they think I'm so stupid to believe this. the lying just keeps going on and on with this crooked administration. I'm sick of it.

Posted by: VotersOfNY | May 28, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

My God, how stupid do they think we are? You people outraged that they think you're stupid to believe this flimsy story Obumbler has come up with no matter what party you belong to?

This is what they want us to believe after more than a week of stalling. I am fuming that they think I'm so stupid to believe this. the lying just keeps going on and on with this crooked administration. I'm sick of it.

Posted by: VotersOfNY | May 28, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"How the Sestak job offer became a big deal" screams the headline, ignoring the legal implications.

How the Watergate dumb break-in became the big deal.......not to long ago could have been a headline ignoring the political implications.

How the reported attack by two N Vietnamese boats on the U.S. fleet......not to long ago could have been a headline ignoring the inaccurate implications .

It's funny how really "big deals" emanate from such small and innocuous headlines.

Posted by: HarGru | May 28, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This is all so perfect.

The Fix makes it sound like they're going after the administration for there terrible PR and lack of transparency, because gosh, it's puts egg on their face. It's also a lot less damaging then having committed a felony. Hopefully people will start buying the dumb PR crap.

Meanwhile Obama tells Clinton to play along and we'll keep your wife oversees a lot, and out of your hair.

Now they have to get Sestak to play along. I wonder what they'll offer him now. Sestak now has a "come to Jesus" moment: Do I play along like the good soldier and risk people knowing I'm a LIAR, or do I tell the truth and have Obama smear the hell out of me but actually win the election for being a person of integrity.

Posted by: dkramer77 | May 28, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

If we buy Obama's administration's argument that this a a "relatively complex situation" and that it took them months to do an "exhaustive review," then how complex is managing the war in Afghanistan or the oil leak in the gulf? Way over these dopes' heads. These guys are a joke.

This is not just another bald-faced lie. It is a bald-faced lie about an impeachable crime. Just the standard political bribery. Sestka said he was offered a job, not an unpaid position on an advisory board! Now he is likely perjuring himself. They had to find a lie to explain how what he said several times was not an indication of a felony bribe from the Obama administration. When can we impeach Obama and throw him out of office together with his cohort of gangsters?

Posted by: MIST1 | May 28, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I had a weird dream that Bill Clinton committed suicide... He should make a public declaration that he will not commit suicide to prevent being a fall guy... Then again it could have just been a premonition of political suicide...

Posted by: Sean777 | May 28, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse


Cillizza, You are such a liberal hack for the White House.

They had to have an extensive review in order to give a detailed account? PULLEEZE!

All they had to do was tell the truth.

Obama and Company were hoping it would go away.

Those few involved know the details implicitly. Probably Obama, Rahm, Clinton, Bard and Sestak. And maybe Messina, too.

And if this happened under Bush, Cillizza, you would have GLEEFULLY written a blog or two.

What a liberal lapdog for Obama.

Why don't you look into White House job offers to Romanoff and Patterson, among probably many others.

Posted by: janet8 | May 28, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Ped (neocoler) hates it when the juice bar agenda gets sidetracked.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

They needed Clinton because they wanted to sweeten the pot with an eight ball and a hooker.

Posted by: mitch52 | May 28, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is not the "white house". I wonder what's in it for him to allow himself to become the scapegoat in all this.

Posted by: thebink | May 28, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

And to think this is the **Washington Post**, the once venerable paper of Bradlee and Graham, reduced to gibbering promoting gossip and supporting the rambling of mentals. Sad.

Looks like another drudge link day.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 28, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Carolyn 22:

.Aren't you glad to give your fair share so Andy Stern can fund his corrupt pension funds.
-----------------------------------------------

This really blows your mind when you read that the corrupt thugs in the SEIU are spending $100 Million to re-elect Democrats in November. If they have this kind of money, why don't these PARASITES use it to help their bloated Pension Fund mess? Why should the overburdened Taxpayer bail these MAGGOTS out?

Remember in November! Vote ALL DemocRATS OUT and neutralize the Marxist-in-Chief's agenda! Save our Constitutional Republic!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Dangling a job before a sitting Congressmen and former Vice-Admiral of the Navy, just to “GAUGE” if he’s serious type of guy from a FORMER President to the lowly Congressman's brother?

"Is" that all it "is, is?"

It makes perfect non-problematic sense!

Posted by: theaz | May 28, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Get a pet hamster to occupy yourself.

Posted by: jasperanselm |


I went to the store and some dude named

Chrissy Fox

had already bought up every hamster and gerbil in the country.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Since when did the Office of the Secretary of the Navy become an "unpaid advisory role"? Something stinks to high heavens and the WAPO staff is deploying air freshener from 55 gallon drums. Loyal NeoCommies to the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't get it..You Got it!

Posted by: MDDem1 | May 28, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

njglea said: ". Why in the world don't the press and Republicans give our President (and our country) a break and help him make the country better instead of throwing bricks."

You have to be kidding. Who has ever gotten a bigger break from the press than the current liar in the White House? Tune in to MSNBC or read the Times...this thug gets a pass on everything he does.

Posted by: billriordan | May 28, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Important to be sure all ducks are in line before releasing a statement. A duck drawn out by the smell of fish would be a disaster! The difference between a "paying" and "non-paying" job could be a Felony.

Posted by: finagler | May 28, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

@dralter

Um, no, the UN Charter is not now and never has been part of our Constitution. It is also not part of the United States Code or any State law. The President can wipe his rear end with the UN Charter (and has, according to some) and most certainly cannot be impeached for that.

As we are part of the UN, we are supposed to try to abide by the charter, but it does not encroach upon our sovreignty.

Oh, and boo hoo with all your "Bush lied" comments. Were you born in 2001? Every politician at his level lies, whether he has a D or an R after his name. Some more than others, to be sure. But don't think this one is squeaky clean. I'm sure dirt will come out on him just as it has on every other President in recent history.

Posted by: davidyoung98 | May 28, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

afraid4me:
"The kids in my house (21 and 20) voted for this administration, and now almost every night over the dinner tables say the same thing, "We were had"."

Good for your kids. To paraphrase the saying often attributed to Churchill (although I'm not sure he was the first to say it):
"If you are 25 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain."

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Wonder what they threatened Sestak with to keep him quite? He doesn't need money, so it must be pretty heavy stuff indeed to scare a guy like him. Wonder how his family is doing these days?

Posted by: rcarpenter1 | May 28, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Well, there are at least two, perhaps three, people in the world that believe a senate candidate, who well knew he'd have a excellent chance of beating a sleazy sitting senator in a primary, would take a non-paying job in the intelligence community where he SURELY would get LOTS of press...NYT notwithstanding, of course. It's my understanding politicians always take non-paying, relatively secretive jobs to further their careers at pivotal points in their ambition for office.

But the other, say, 5 or 10 or 15 billion people on the planet call this a lie.

My money is with the smarter, more honest latter group.

Posted by: go_figure7722 | May 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

You blame Obama for everything and as a result, any possible valid points you have just get disregarded in the nonsense.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He did ask for ther job. a job which on occasion involves taking responsibility. Unless everything you've ever done relies upon remaining a victim.

On the other hand, if there is any fingerpointing and blame to be done, we have seen that Obungler is most assuredly the most prolific in that activity.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh yea sure, we can really, really believe Clinton. And the new Pres and all his foolish stories.

If you believe this, YOU ARE A FOOL.

If it were the truth they would have come forward when Sestak was running. I live in PA and Sestak was on a local morning talk show. If this were the story he could have just said so and it would not have been a big deal during the campaign.

Posted by: Blacknblue2 | May 28, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse


THIS IS A FELONY INVESTIGATION - AND NOW A COVER-UP.

WHAT A LAUGH.

BRING BACK NIXON - AT LEAST HE KNEW HOW TO HAVE A SCANDAL.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 28, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Come on Chris. This explanation doesn't pass the basic sniff test. You can't possibly believe that an un-paid advisory panel post is enough to make someone give up a Senate run - where they're the favorite by the way! By admitting they offered that, they are admitting they offered something. But, no reasonable person would believe that is all they offered. And I think any reasonably objective journalist would make that point.

I didn't and don't fault you for critically examining all of Bush's actions and words when he was in office, but you continue to lose credibility by failing to do the same with Obama.

I've seen this all to often in my field (CPA) where people care more about their own agendas than they do about discharging the public trust inherent in their jobs. You have that public trust aspect to your job and you fail to carry it out when you write these kinds of stories where you simply regurgitate the untenable explanations offered by spokesmen. Your capable of better and the Post's readers deserve better.

Posted by: Avar | May 28, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's not forget that the House -- the GOP controlled House -- impeached a president for arranging an interview for an aide. Yes. Monica.

This is a stupid story run by stupid people who are trying too hard to get the story to be about something other than how the economy is slowly returning.

This is the GOP trying to reclaim the Congress. Nothing more. They need a scandal, Chris, and you guys are giving it to them.

Posted by: teoandchive | May 28, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

When testifying on this before congress, I'm not sure the "Reagan reportedly did it" defense is gonna work that well.

Isn't it great leadership to blame Bush, Cheyney, Reagan, BP, the banks, Israel, Rush Limbaugh, and your grandmother for all the screw-ups lying in your inbox.

Posted by: pascal64 | May 28, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"That the story has become a major controversy... is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy..."

Doesn't this strike anyone as circular reasoning? It is a fabricated controversy achieved with the aid of columns like this.

Posted by: pmurph2 | May 28, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

This is as transparent as smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: Dutra1 | May 28, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

From the same AP story about Hayakawa:
Similarly, Hayakawa said in a statement, “I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me.”

Sestak has on more than one occasion stated that the White House did offer him a position if he dropped out.

That's the difference.

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

Posted by: sawyer3 | May 28, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

@JRM2

You continue to try to point to allegations against the Bush and Reagan administrations as if 1)these allegations are somehow true, and 2)another wrong done makes it OK for the current administration.

Remember the campaign promises of Hope and Change? Of the most transparent administration ever? How about the health care debates being televised on CSPAN? Or perhaps posting EVERY bill on the White House web site for review prior to signing?

Folks, we've been had. The kids in my house (21 and 20) voted for this administration, and now almost every night over the dinner tables say the same thing, "We were had. We did this to our country. We believed all that stuff he promised. Boy, were we stupid." I tell them this, I'm proud of you, you made up your own minds, and you voted in your first election. Now, go out and learn for yourselves.
Like I often say, I didn't leave the Democratic Party 20 years ago. They left me.

Posted by: afraid4me | May 28, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

So yeah, you're right, I am not as "efficient" as Obungler in that regard.

Posted by: bumblingberry

I sure hope this isn't your PAID profession, dingleberry, because you're not very good at it.

You blame Obama for everything and as a result, any possible valid points you have just get disregarded in the nonsense.

If this isn't your full-time job, then you need to get a life; you spend way to much time on the blog. Get a pet hamster to occupy yourself.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

As a side note...Did you guys know that Obamacare has a little known secret going. Ready...If your company provided healthcare to you in 2010...they will send your W-2 form to the company and the amount paid for insurance will be added to your income. If you are retired and living on SS but one spouse still has insurance provided by the company via your spouse's employment...YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT AMOUNT ADDED TO YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME. Sourced:www: thomas.gov ; enter HR3590 in the search
Aren't you Progressives so happy with this? So, he is going to have the companies drop the insurance because single payer is cheaper...fine the companies and then get into your wallet as "added income".

So....if the press won't print it...then e-mail it to your friends...because this is not going to be a good tax year. Bush's cuts expiring, Obama's spending increasing, CapandTrade about to be passed. No drilling in the Gulf (except for other countries)...Aren't you glad to give your fair share so Andy Stern can fund his corrupt pension funds.

Posted by: Carolyn22 | May 28, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Liberal defense number two, comes right after "It's a lie" is shown to be futile:

Repubs did it too.

This attempts to pull the entire nation down into the festering swamp with them. It only works in Manhattan and San franfreakshow, where the minds are soft and the ethics are subject to negotiation.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

This little fairy tale stars one of history's most prolific liars.

The cockroach becomes more pathetic as each day passes.

Posted by: HostileKnowledge | May 28, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

THE ONLY CHANGE HAS BEEN FOR THE WORSE.

All of Obama's commitments to change the status quo in Washington have led to NOTHING.

Obama's campaign of 2008 HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A BUNCH OF LIES AND DECEPTION.


This needs to be repeated -


The democrats pulled a FRAUD on the American People with Obama NEVER FORGET.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 28, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Liberal defense number two, comes right after "It's a lie" is shown to be futile:

Repubs did it too.

This attempts to pull the entire nation down into the festering swamp with them. It only works in Manhattan and San franfreakshow, where the minds are soft and the ethics are subject to negotiation.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

So now they throw Clinton under the bus. They of course know Clinton has no problem lying under oath.

And all the libs have to offer is "Bush, Bush, Bush"...as usual.

And I see the real racists are out now...calling everyone a racist who thinks the White House is corrupt. Oops, sorry, that's now the Rainbow House, right?

Man, don't these libs ever get tired of screaming, "Bush", "racist", "Bush", "racist", ad nauseam...

so pathetic. Can't wait till November.

Posted by: EdgarFriendly1 | May 28, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

John svengali:

I like the ring of OBAMA-CLINTON-GATE.

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

It will all boil down to what "the meaning of the word "is" is.......

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This lot think they are still in Chicago trying to make or make up more demo-rats.

Posted by: 1uncle | May 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

So now they throw Clinton under the bus. They of course know Clinton has no problem lying under oath.

And all the libs have to offer is "Bush, Bush, Bush"...as usual.

And I see the real racists are out now...calling everyone a racist who thinks the White House is corrupt. Oops, sorry, that's now the Rainbow House, right?

Man, don't these libs ever get tired of screaming, "Bush", "racist", "Bush", "racist", ad nauseam...

so pathetic. Can't wait till November.

Posted by: EdgarFriendly1 | May 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Right now, Sestak's only real offense is the fact that he refuses to disclose the details of who offered him what. Nothing criminal about turning down a bribe; however there is a House Ethics Committee that SHOULD look into this - but probably won't. Covering up a bribe from a federal official should bring about his expulsion from congress........if Sestak or congress had ANY integrity. The offering of same bribe should land someone in jail.

And.....Does any thinking person honestly believe that Rahm Emanuel did this entirely without Obama knowing? Do they REALLY think we are THAT stupid? The corruption goes to the very top.

Posted by: whosiwhatzit | May 28, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I'm up for talking some 'real news', if you find to be too trivial this pesky business of possible felonies being committed by the White House.

How about this 'real news': by my count following small stories quietly posted in MSM outlets (like AP, Reuters, etc), the spending in the health care bill is now projected to be 37% over the $940 billion counted in the infamous CBO report that laughable claimed 'deficit reduction'.

They've missed by more than 1/3rd, and no elements of the Plan have even started yet. I consider that 'real news'. How about yourself?

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

I share your concern about political news worthy stories. Since you are so worried, why not a story on why congress has not pasted a budget. Where is the leadership? Are they afraid that they will have to see how large a deficit they are running up? I see a lot of bills being passed, but little on the ballooning budget deficit. You used to talk about the irresponsible of the R especially on the budget. Where is your outrage now? Something smells and its not Drudge….

Posted by: sliowa1 | May 28, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for the enlightening article because I couldn't understand how the situation has gotten so blown out of proportion. However, it's my opinion that press representatives often act like spoiled little children: "Give it to me and give it to me now or I'll make a big deal of it. But after you tell me what I want to know I'll figure out a way to throw what you say back in your face."

I was impressed with President Obama, when he was campaigning, because of his direct answers to questions by the press and the public. I thought maybe he could overcome attacks by the press and Republicans. It seems to be too much even for him. Why in the world don't the press and Republicans give our President (and our country) a break and help him make the country better instead of throwing bricks.

Posted by: njglea | May 28, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If you believe this BS, go ahead, jump off the cliff. It wont hurt.

Posted by: 1uncle | May 28, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP)

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a
The way was made clear by President Reagan

Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

“I’m not interested;” said the 75-year-old Hayakawa. “I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post.”

Posted by: wanttoknow1 | May 28, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

bulls__t

Posted by: dsuds1 | May 28, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:
There were a myriad of truly impeachable and criminal offenses by the Bush admin. and even with a supermajority the dems left him alone knowing that there were some very serious matters regarding the county's survival at stake.
------------------------------------------------

Another CROCK! If there was any way on earth the Dems could have Impeached George W. Bush they would have done it with huge smiles on their smarmy faces! They didn't resist out of their "patriotism." lol.....This is hilarious!


Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who believes this story made up by Obama and his corrupt administration needs their head examinded. Bottom line, a crime was committed, and Obama needs to fess up and resign!

Posted by: jerseyjoe99982002 | May 28, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I think the White House acted stupidly.

Now it's time to put our boots on their neck.

Don't cry liberals. We're gonna have some fun with you now.

Posted by: pascal64 | May 28, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who believes this story made up by Obama and his corrupt administration needs their head examinded. Bottom line, a crime was committed, and Obama needs to fess up and resign!

Posted by: jerseyjoe99982002 | May 28, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Willie: I am authorized to offer you a postion, make that perhaps offer you, for no pay if you drop your Senate bid.

Sestak: no pay? who authorized this?

Willie: did I say authorized, I meant suggested, no make that considered with the possibility of not doing it.

Sestak: Is this an offer or not?

Willie: It is. From the highest authority no less.

Sestak: who?

Willie: What?

Sestak: the offer

Willie: what offer?

Sestak: The person?

willie: What person?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of coniving damn liars!

Its the Billery answer!

I wounld not believe any thing Billery spouts out of his cigar hole!

This is just too f-cking much!

Posted by: dusty70 | May 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of coniving damn liars!

Its the Billery answer!

I wounld not believe any thing Billery spouts out of his cigar hole!

This is just too f-cking much!

Posted by: dusty70 | May 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

The reason they called it an "unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board" is because the law (18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211:) says "Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both."

Get it? it was "unpaid" therefor of no value, hence not a crime! we are being played like fools!

Posted by: geib | May 28, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:
""President Reagan offered California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in his administration if he dropped out of the Senate primary race in California.
President George W. Bush offered a job at the United Nations to Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.)...."

As usual, a good liberal won't let facts get in the way of the point they want to make. Do some research. In addition to only being able to find the above two stories on left-wing blogs (no MSM sources), from what I could find every allegation of those two things happening were prefaced with "reportedly" and/or "rumored". Neither was ever confirmed, and in fact the players in those administrations said the allegations were false. The closest they could come was Ed Rollins saying that they would try to find a spot in the administration for Hayakawa if he decided to not seek reelection, but NO POSITION was ever offered, paid or unpaid.

So nice try, JRM2. You should know by now you will get in trouble with your credibility if all you can do is cut-and-paste from mediamatters or huffpo.

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

great -- now we have one of the great liars of the past century jumping in the midst of this.

I guess when the Obama administration was looking for someone to throw under the bus with minimal damage they figured that slick willie would work becuase he is already disbarred.

and we are only 17 months into this mess. I guess the U.S, is just to big a community to organize

Posted by: curlybyrd | May 28, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:


"President Reagan offered California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in his administration if he dropped out of the Senate primary race in California -- an offer that Hayakawa, like Sestak, rejected.

President George W. Bush offered a job at the United Nations to Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.) so that he wouldn't run for re-election in a district that had been redrawn following redistricting."

I guess some people want a whole new set of rules for our nation's first black President.
-----------------------------------------------

And out comes the RACE CARD! Despicable!! Also, you really need to "source" your allegations. They don't ring true! Progressives are known to LIE because "the end justifies the means."

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

This is a completely fabricated alibi by two of the biggest disingenuous liars in Washington, D.C. and one accomplice by the name of Joe Sestak. It's all wink and nod but oh how the left stream media wants to believe in the infallibility of two of the the biggest presidential phonies in our nation's history.

Posted by: michaelneedsgrace | May 28, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The Fix. LOL. How appropriate because the fix is definitely in. So Obama and Clinton have lunch together yesterday and this is the best that they could come up with? They must think the American public is very stupid and feel confident that the lame stream media won't dare question them. They are probably right and you know Holder or the democrat controlled Congress won't look into it. Political corruption at it's finest. Chicago-style politics is now firmly entrenched in Washington.

Posted by: Mahakala | May 28, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This is laughable...I mean...too much. "I did not have sex with that women, Ms. Lewinsky"..with the finger wagging at the press. Now...wasn't former President Clinton found guilty of perjury (otherwise known as lying to we "uneducated" people and his law license taken away?

Now...we are asked to believe that he is a convenient pawn in Obama's chess game. Problem...Rambo Dead Fish Emanual asked him to do it. Who does Dead Fish work for...Obama.

In the regular world...outside of D.C. if you are complicit in a crime...aren't you found JUST as guilty as the one that committed it? How refreshing it was to hear that Sestak was going to take an "advisory role"...WOW....Joe was going to do it for NOTHING?????????? AND GIVE UP THE SENATE BID??????

Like all GOOD DEMOCRATS...HE (Sestak) WILL FALL ON HIS SWORD FOR OBAMA. TOO BAD...PEOPLE IN PA LISTEN UP...IF YOU VOTE FOR HIM...THIS MEANS HE CAN BE 'BOUGHT' IF HE DOES THIS.

Posted by: Carolyn22 | May 28, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Lying, fraud Marxist scum of the earth, all of 'em.

Posted by: cuffymeigs1 | May 28, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Such hypocrisy! Do you really believe you Libwads would NOT be screaming for IMPEACHMENT had this same scenario happened during the Bush administration? Get real!!

Posted by: priley8104"
---
There were a myriad of truly impeachable and criminal offenses by the Bush admin. and even with a supermajority the dems left him alone knowing that there were some very serious matters regarding the county's survival at stake.

You guys would do anything at any cost to impeach a dem president.

WHere was your outrage when Reagan did the exact same thing?
Where was your outrage when Bush did the exact same thing?

THe difference is that the repubs are making a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 28, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Lying, fraud Marxist scum of the earth, both of 'em.

Posted by: cuffymeigs1 | May 28, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The country deserves to know if their Present ident is a crook.

Now we know.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

We all know Bill Clinton would never lie to cover up a crime. R-i-g-h-t!

When Obama hired that sleezy little former ballet dancer from Israel via Chicago, I knew this regime would stink of corruption. Rahm Emanuel was one of the Clinton regime fast-talkers who would say anything like it was the truth, especially if it wasn't.

Bill Clinton as "character witness" is not a good starting point either. There are too many books, depositions and affidavits to confirm his prevaricating propensity. I can just hear him reprise his most memorable line from the Paula Jones mess: "It depends what the meaning of is is." It will go something like: "It depends what the meaning of job is" or"...what offer is."

With a notoriously weak sister in Eric "Mirandize the terrorists" Holder as AG, there will be no justice at the Justice Department, only an agenda which includes White facilitation of corruption.

Congressman Issa of California has called on a free press to keep the pressure on. I completely agree. This the time for the "Fourth Estate" to shine the light of day on corruption. If the press accepts this manufactured drivel coming out of the White House Counsel's office, they are dumber than I thought.

I like the ring of OBAMA-CLINTON-GATE.

Posted by: JohnSvengali | May 28, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Gee Chris :
Only when a Dem occupies our White House can a potential federal felony be the result of a mountain being made out of a bunch of molehills -
Will the November general elections ever get here ?
Pitboss ...

Posted by: jkiernan2332 | May 28, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

williambaker l:

With this guy in office, I miss Jimmy Carter!

-------------------------------------------------
I kinda even miss old Tricky Dick Nixon! This POTUS makes him look like a Choir Boy.

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

In the other news of the day, Bill Clinton has approached LeBron James at the behest of the Cavs ownership and offered a position directing traffic at all Cavs home games next year.

Posted by: fe59 | May 28, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I'VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU MAMSERS OUT THERE WHO THINK THIS STORY ISN'T IMPORTANT CUZ THE NYT/WAPOST/LATIMES/CBS/NBC/ABC DOESN'T THINK SO.

Nobody of Sestak's stature and reputation takes a crappy, low-profile, non-paying lame job like the Obama administration say's it offered him through Clinton. There's a pantload more of this to study.

Posted by: g8r4evr | May 28, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The reason they called it an "unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board" is because the law (18 U.S.C. § 211 : US Code - Section 211:) says "Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution,
or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in
consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in
obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both."

The only thing transparent about the White House in their lies!

Posted by: geib | May 28, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

One interesting thing: Mr. Sestak deserves some credit for refusing to accept the job offer.

However if we tested this against the Jeffersonian Honor Code (ask any UVa Student who saw cheating going on and got expelled for not reporting it) or what is often called Plain Old Ethics: Seeing a potential ethical or criminal violation being committed and not reporting it to the Authorities is as bad as committing the violation itself.

Still, compared to most politicians, he at least refused to accept what could arguably be called a bribe. And Bill Clinton, for all his faults, could always claim he was not in a position to offer a federal job to anyone, being merely a professional motivational speaker.

Interestingly, Secretary of State Clinton just has nothing to do with domestic petty politics anymore (apparently), and just does her job honorably and forcefully (and I never believed I would say that!).

Posted by: carlmr | May 28, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"absolutely nothing in that statute has the first thing to do with the Sestak situation. Sestak didn't pay Clinton to try to get the position, and Clinton didn't tell Sestak he could get him a job if Sestak slipped him some cash."

Which statute? You sure that they did nothing wrong in all statutes? Maybe so, they has to check all of them before making up this story.


Posted by: hpalot | May 28, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

2010Rout | May 28, 2010 11:50 AM ... Clinton was NOT disbarred. His Akansas law license was suspended for 5 years.

Clinton was a wise choice to serve as an intermediary since he is willing to say whatever is necessary - truth be damned.

If the situation was truly as the WH has announced, there would have been no reason not to have responded when Sestak first made his public assertion.

Logical question is why would a Congressman who stood a good chance to win the Pennsylvania Senate seat even consider dropping from the race to take a non paying advisory position absent a promise of more?

Obama is truly a Chicago Sleazy politician.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | May 28, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

So I guess all these people will soon be becoming Democrats, as R voters will surely try to drive them out of the party. You can keep Ron Paul, though. We Dems don't care for white supremacists.
-------------------------------------------------
Oh, really? But you sure dig those old KKK Grand Kleagle's like Robert "Sheets" Byrd, don't cha? lol!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I knew Obama was incompetent, but now I can assume he's also the thug we were warned about. Time to look a little closer at the Blago trial.

Posted by: pascal64 | May 28, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Alas, the first Rumplestilskin Hussein Obama spinning fairy tale dumped on a Friday before Memorial Day.

No one with a functioning brain believes that they offered Sestak an "unpaid advisory role" to get out of the race against Specter. It is beyond believable.

And so, come mid next week, a new Hussein Obama fairy tale will be spun, to correct the Blumenthals in the first.

Posted by: KJS1953 | May 28, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes these two political hacks is crazy. One is a proven liar and the other talks out of both sides of his mouth. Of course,Emanuel is out of town,the coward.

Posted by: ladyluck1 | May 28, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Like everything else crooked in the Obama administration, there is nothing to see. Keep moving.

Question? If it was as innocent as portrayed by Obam administration, why did it take so long to come out with the answer? I would think that when the subject originally came up, the WH would quickly state that yes, he was offered a non-paying advisory position and it would have been over. By lying and delaying, it looks as though he is covering up something. Just like his birth certificate, school records, voting records, etc.

With this guy in office, I miss Jimmy Carter!

Posted by: williambaker1 | May 28, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Clinton didn't have lunch together coincidentally the DAY BEFORE they release this TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE EXCUSE for the Administration's ILLEGAL behavior! Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see through this OBVIOUS LIE.
The Socialists Obama, Pelosi and Reid are hell-bent on having the Democrat Party seen 20 years from now in the same light as the Whig and Bull Moose parties: EXTINCT!! All patriotic Americans (especially young ones) NEED to go vote and throw out the LIBERTY-ROBBING, HIGH-TAXING, MORALLY BANKRUPT Democrats in 2010 and 2012!! Your freedom DEPENDS on it......

Posted by: peteto1 | May 28, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who believes this fabrication by Slick Willie and Obamalamadingdong is either a dingdong sycophant or a dingdong sycophant. Made to order story in order to get both stupidones off the hook, Sestak and Obama. What a crock concrockted (sic) by the Dem's. I hope they all choke on their story. One termer like Carter and maybe before if we have any luck at all!

Posted by: hindsight2040 | May 28, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"President Reagan offered California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in his administration if he dropped out of the Senate primary race in California -- an offer that Hayakawa, like Sestak, rejected.

President George W. Bush offered a job at the United Nations to Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.) so that he wouldn't run for re-election in a district that had been redrawn following redistricting."

I guess some people want a whole new set of rules for our nation's first black President.

Posted by: JRM2 | May 28, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Mike j9116:

Obama has now wallowed in Bill Clinton's cesspool of lies and deceit and the stench is on him thick. No matter how hard he tries, Obama will never get that smell off himself.
----------------------------------------------
Oh, come on, Mike. Slick Willy now has the stench of the Chicaco Cesspool all over HIM. Obama is well practiced in sleazy politics and there is no way Slick Willy, as despicable as he is, has corrupted this partisan, divisive, hard-knuckled politician. IMPEACH AND FLUSH!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

In a historic vote last night, the House passed an amendment to repeal the military’s discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Earlier this week, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), the House’s third-ranking Republican, had “promised unified GOP opposition to lifting the ban” on gays serving openly in the military. “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle,” Pence said. But dismissing Pence’s leadership, five Republicans joined 229 Democrats to vote for the repeal:

The vote was 234 to 194.

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL), and Charles Djou (R-HI) were the only Republicans to vote in favor of scrapping the law."

So I guess all these people will soon be becoming Democrats, as R voters will surely try to drive them out of the party. You can keep Ron Paul, though. We Dems don't care for white supremacists.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton... is this the same sob who sold our guidance systems to the ChiComs?

Will wonders never cease?

Posted by: wannabersc | May 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

This job offer is like asking the School Superintendent to take a volunteer job as an unpaid teachers aide, just not believable to anyone not a Washington Compost hack.

Posted by: fe59 | May 28, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Can't wait for this story to slip to the out basket. While the Obama-haters reinforce each others' paranoia, participating on this blog is too much like slogging through sewers. Pungent, but a waste of time.

I'm going off to monitor the Gulf oil situation. The techies say the riser has been separated from the BOP, but I don't see that in the live feed. The techie blog is pretty informed, though. http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4551846015/in/photostream/page14/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I am still waiting on all of Georgie Boys impeachable offenses:

President Bush has admitted that he has authorized the use of surveillance upon American citizens and residents.

Lied, misled and/or relied upon inappropriate intelligence DATA to engage in an improper invasion of a sovereign nation, violated the UN Charter (which is part and parcel of our Constitution by law).

Bush lied and our troops have died.
Bush lied and his administration spied.
Bush lied and our liberties were denied.
Bush lied and freedoms were circumscribed.
Bush lied and our laws he did not abide.
Face it Bush does nothing without having first lied.

So why should Obama be treated any different?

Posted by: dralter | May 28, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The responses have been predictable and fall upon ideological lines. Democrats dismiss this as chump change. Republicans see this as a Watergate. I do hope all would take a moment and admit to themselves that if it were occurring with the other party, their responses might be markedly different. I would like to know what chit Bill got from Obama the other day at lunch. Bill does not work cheap. Perhaps Obama will bail out Hillary's campaign debt in the near future?

Posted by: grady2 | May 28, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I am here on behalf of the President, Rahm asked me to make the offer. So Joe--what do you think? Remember the Senate--a dead end job-only guaranteed to last 6 years-or this nice cushie non-paying job that will be created and you giving you great prestige for the remaining term of our Great President.

Well, if not that, what about maybe secretary of the Navy--but I can't offer that to you until I get a final OK from the President. Really Joe, you have us between a rock and a hard place--you know we promised to back him for election as the Democrat in the primary this term-- He has that in writing so we need an answer from you.

Posted by: kfl5090 | May 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

drindl,

"The sewage is strong here today. I smell a drudge link."

No that is just the oil that is washing a shore in LA.

Posted by: sliowa1 | May 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Was there a Drudge link today, or has his crowd suddenly decided to stick around rather than just pop back whenever there's a link?"


When the deluge of sewage is this thick, it's always a drudge link. his followers are the most cretinous thugs on the internet.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

It is also very suspicious that President Clinton would have a “private” lunch with President Obama yesterday, just before today's announcement. Surely those two are “circling the wagons” to get their stories straight. Bill Clinton lied before with regard to scandal and he is likely to do it again.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell is a bigger news story than a possible felony being committed by the White House?

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Well THIS IS NOW A FELONY INVESTIGATION


There is little reason to believe that an unpaid position was offered in the middle of this.

WHY would a sitting member of Congress be interested in such a position ?


Come on Folks lets be serious.


OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED OVER THIS.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 28, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS THIS SCHMENDRICK-WRITER TO SAY THIS IS "A SMALL THING?" This not a small thing. This is a huge thing. Sestak only came out and talked about it when it looked like he would lose to Spector and he was desperate to make points w/ the voters. Nowhe's won and is between the proverbial rock and hard-place. He has painted himself into the Dem corner and doesn't wanna look like a snitch to his lib constituency.

At least were lucky to have this ass-hat outta the military.

Posted by: g8r4evr | May 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"a major PR problem that could well overshadow the President's visit to the Gulf later today."

Only if Drudge rules your world. Oh, wait.

Posted by: jmccormick1 | May 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The sewage is strong here today. I smell a drudge link.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Whoever thinks this is a big deal either has an inside-the-beltway mentality or a get-Obama mentality. This is not a big deal. Something that really is a big deal - an unprecedented, catastrophic big deal - is what is happening in the Gulf. The amount of time and energy that we focus on different events should be proportionate to their importance. What are we doing to contain the Gulf disaster and to address the root causes so that it never happens again? That is something that is truly important - to every one of us.

Posted by: Maggie56 | May 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I thought you guys were against frivolous lawsuits. Now, you want to prosecute the media (the ones that are Liberal) for abetting a felony. And all because the media won't get rid of Obama (because your guy can't win in an election).

You, sir, have lost your mind. Get a grip on your partisanship.

Posted by: 12BarBlues
------------------------------------------------

Such hypocrisy! Do you really believe you Libwads would NOT be screaming for IMPEACHMENT had this same scenario happened during the Bush administration? Get real!!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I seem to remember during the Reagan and two Bush administrations that just the appearance of wrongdoing is enough to warrant a strong independent investigation, like Anita Hill, Bob Packwood's accusers, the anonymous letter that Dan Rather had so much faith in. So why is this not a Major Major scandal? Also, it is, as most liberals like to say, a Teachable Moment: DON'T BRIBE PEOPLE. But other than Mr. Cillizza's web page, you are not going to see this treated as much of a story. They let Chris and Jake Tapper write stuff, then it gets ignored, and the MSM can always point to their ignored stories as proof that it was reported except not as the top of the front page, and certainly wihout sidebar stories, analyses, what-if and worst-case scenarios; that's reserved for Republicans apparently.

Posted by: carlmr | May 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter"

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

Notice how the author portrays Republicans as indulgently reveling in someone's misfortune - like giggling school children.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, they usually portray the Dems as "bringing important facts to light for public scrutiny.

The bias here amuses me.

Posted by: HughJassPhD | May 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Got to admit it, didn't see this one coming. 0bamba picked the perfect fall guy, an admitted liar and a good one. Clinton; "depends on what the meaning of is is" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He's one of the best liars ever in the 0val office, but he a nice liar. The liberals love him unlike the liar we have now. 0bamba is up to lie number 234 and the liberal rats are abandoning ship very quickly before they are voted out. Sestak is a rat too. Good old Rahmbo at least has another weekend in politics. Can't wait for November...

Posted by: kennethy692008 | May 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"'How do you make something out of nothing?,' asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. 'By acting guilty when you're innocent.'"

Perhaps because it took this long to come up with a plausible cover story that would maintain the innocence of the White House. If Clinton really were the messenger, why not just say no one from the White House made such an offer and leave it at that.

How convenient this response!

Posted by: corkyboyd1 | May 28, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama throws another one under the bus...Clinton!

Posted by: SergeantHulka | May 28, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Liberals like 12Bar are sad. They can't even admit when one of their own is caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Instead, they try to pathetically pass it off when they would be the ones whining the loudest if the ones being accused of such shennanigans had R's instead of D's next to their names.

Trust me, if this was Bush/Rove instead of Obama/Rahm, Congress would have had a whole team of independent investigators appointed a month ago, and the congressional hearings hauling these guys in front of cameras would be well underway.

Democrats are such hypocrites, it's simultaneously appalling and saddening...

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Small credit to the Post for at least blogging about the Sestak / Obama deal. The rest of the media are good little lap dogs and won't even ask about this. Just like Clinton they were forced to cover Monica because of Drudge and John Edwards took the National Enquirer to break that.

Posted by: PupsMcCann | May 28, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Where is the story on repealing DADT -- an actual news story? 80% of the public agrees with it, and all but 5 Rs voted against it. That is a solid political story about how out of touch repubicans are, but not a trace of it here, of course.

This fake 'furor' reminds me all the crotch-sniffing the press did during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The only thing transparent in the Obama administration is our national secrets!

Posted by: SergeantHulka | May 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you need to go back with your pals on the "Obama Network" MNSBC and start your daily circle jerk on the air when your Obamessiah lies again and throws another person under the bus to save his own hide. Oh, I forgot, your "Obama Network" will not even mention a word about this story all day long!!! I'm sure I'll see you on the "Obama Network" with your circle jerk pals Chris "I get a tingling feeling running up my leg" Matthews, Ed "I love Obama", and Dumbdown by Dumb Olbermann tonight. I'm sure you and your lover boys will be slobbering all over each other and your Savior Obamessiah! You're looking rather foolish nowadays!

Posted by: slbenzoboy | May 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The only Republican I know of who has done anything similar was Tom Delay, and he had to resign over it. OK it was a threat not a bribe. But the only thing I can think of. But the Democrats are always getting in trouble with bribes, sex, and those BJ's that are not really sex.

Posted by: hpalot | May 28, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Rahm, Slick Willy, Obama.....no way do any of these players have any credibility. This needs a Special Investigator. It smacks of a coverup because Joe Sestak originally said he had a job offer and did not deny it was Secretary of the Navy. Bubba and Comrade Obama had lunch yesterday to get their stories straight. Also, why was Joe Sestak's brother involved in this mess, other than the fact he was Joe's campaign manager during his recent Primary win. This is not going to go away based simply on a statement from Comrade Obamas team of lawyers!
If this is so innocent, why was it not addressed 3 months ago? pfft!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 28, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Grand Jury time for all three of these pillars of society.

Posted by: hansen2 | May 28, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

And to all you liberal Apologists for the Obama administration commenting on this blog, get a grip on your ignorance and hypocrisy for once. You wanted Bush Impeached for firing Lawyers, something he hada perfect right to do, yet you cant see how this violates the law!? You are so partisan that you cant even admit what you know is true. What happened to transparency and change? What happened to doing things differently? Instead we bring back the only President impeached in the 20th century, to help HIDE THE TRUTH!! CLINTON IS A LIAR, ALWAYS HAS BEEN ALWAYS WILL BE. This story wont go away because of a Friday afternoon news dump. There is to much at stake in this nation to allow Felons to run our country, and drive it off the cliff!!

Posted by: bettlerd | May 28, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

This is becoming laughable. White House allies insisting the delay was to make sure they "had all the facts" so there wouldn't be an embarassing mistatement? Translation: they had to get their lies straight. If everyone is telling the truth, there is no reason for delays and stonewalling. It's like high school kids getting home at 4am after a night of partying. They have to get their stories straight and rehearse them, lest one of the parents sniffs out the trouble they got into.

"Unpaid" advisory role? Sestak said he was offered a "job". Not a "role". Not a "position". A "JOB". A 'job' brings a paycheck.

Everyone knows they are lying, but it will be impossible to prove as long as Sestak shuts up.

Posted by: dbw1 | May 28, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Whats the BIG Deal? Much to do about nothing. What's Politics? -"The art of influencing the political process" It's done all the time.
When did the Republicans all of a sudden " Get Religion"
When did the Republicans become
" Holier than Thou?"
If Toomey was so sure of a victory in November they would not be running all of this interfarence.
They were so sure of the PA 12 what happened? this was going to be the Litmus Test for November the weathervain? what happened. To listen to Hannity nad others you would think that this the case of the Lindburg Baby.
Is like the coach of the opposing team trying to influence the the refs.

Posted by: Carprin | May 28, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Impeachment must begin immediately. This is "high crimes and misdemeanors" worthy of impeachment. Impeach the cancer before it spreads!

Posted by: thinker5 | May 28, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The people of the United States need to demand an investigation into this matter, and while we are at it, we need to demand that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the three major Networks and the two puny Liberal hack cable networks be investigating for abeting a felony.
------------------------------------
I thought you guys were against frivolous lawsuits. Now, you want to prosecute the media (the ones that are Liberal) for abetting a felony. And all because the media won't get rid of Obama (because your guy can't win in an election).

You, sir, have lost your mind. Get a grip on your partisanship.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Why would a viable candidate for a public office which pays $174,000 a year with numerous benefits (including healthcare for life and a retirement pension of $117,600 a year which is fully vested at age 62 with only five years of service) drop out of the race in exchange for an unpaid, advisory position?

Obviously, there is no logical answer to that question and, hence, this fairy tale concocted over lunch by Comrade Barry and Slick Willie has no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by: PauvrePapillon | May 28, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

mr. president, there is a cancer on your presidency.

woodward and bernstein take note: i said it first.

Posted by: sdcolin | May 28, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Hope. Change. Transparency.

Posted by: c_e_daniel | May 28, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

DO YOU REALLY EXPECT HONESTY FROM A DEMOCRAT?

A Democrat Lies about his military service (Blumenthal), sells his vote (Stupak), has an extramarital affair (Clinton), cheats on his taxes (Rangle), accepts bribes (Murtha RIP), takes bribes (Jefferson), sells a Senate seat (Jackson), backs underage sex-trafficking (Cleaver), lives with a pimp (Frank), lies about racism (Carnahan), and on and on and on...

THEY ARE DEMOCRATS and IT IS EXPECTED OF THEM! They have no morals, there is no God, praise homosexuals, be politically correct, kill your baby, tax global warming, embrace illegals, bigger government is the answer to everything. The most corrupt Democrat is the most exalted.

Posted by: fantum | May 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Bubba is to blame, but what is the meaning of the word 'is'? How convenient, now it is not part of his administration. Does anyone really believe this lie?

Posted by: nono524 | May 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

***It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.***

no it isn't. it's yet another in a miles-long list of examples of the fat, lazy, easily duped/mislead press corpse.

Posted by: mycomment | May 28, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

" would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington."

Unless of course as we now find out, the man was offered a position for stepping aside, a crime that violates Federal Election laws, 3 in fact. The people of the United States need to demand an investigation into this matter, and while we are at it, we need to demand that the Washington Post, the New York Times, the three major Networks and the two puny Liberal hack cable networks be investigating for abeting a felony. This is an absolute joke. We are talking about two Presidents of the United States, one former one current, participating in a Felony!! Its time to demand the truth and push the media the hell out of the way.

Posted by: bettlerd | May 28, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

It became a big story because Fox and Morning Joe made it a big story. MSM should have ignored or at least told the public that this is normal and listed all the offers/inquiries that have been made over the years. But the MSM once again did not do their job. I just can't imagine why MSM has no credibility but this is a perfect example. Much ado about nothing.

Posted by: rlj1 | May 28, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

It took long enough for Sestak and others to dodge the issue until a story was developed, rehearsed and put into effect! They are all croaks!

Posted by: thompsor | May 28, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Since this board runs nothing much but R talking points, it is both sad and pathetic, 12Bar. These are truly stoopid people.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 1:53 PM
--------------------------------
We know there are a lot of posters here who don't read this blog on a regular basis, or they would realize how ridiculous it is to accuse Chris Cillizza of being in the bag for Obama.

Another impression is that the rising level of hysteria about this story, is the realization that the story is slipping away. And it is. Everything has been said. Crank the news cycle, and this story goes to the out basket. That's why the last posts have to blame the press.

To those who WANT to keep this story alive: get yourself an attack dog (that California woman Orly Tate comes to mind) and come up with your evidence. Orly needs another gig other than the birther stuff, and I guarantee you, she's persistent.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"look, Barry...just deny everything"
"But you did that, and look what happened"
"Yeah, i know...Hillary got pissed"
"No, no not that stain thing, you got caught in a lie"
"Uh, well it all depends what your definition of a 'lie' is"
"Look Bill, they Impeached you!"
"Well, I guess they did...but what happened? Nothing. Still served the rest of my term and have been making millions since then. you've been doing great so far, don't sweat it".
"Hmm...ok...so, how do we spin this?"

Posted by: ward5354 | May 28, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"look, Barry...just deny everything"
"But you did that, and look what happened"
"Yeah, i know...Hillary got pissed"
"No, no not that stain thing, you got caught in a lie"
"Uh, well it all depends what your definition of a 'lie' is"
"Look Bill, they Impeached you!"
"Well, I guess they did...but what happened? Nothing. Still served the rest of my term and have been making millions since then. you've been doing great so far, don't sweat it".
"Hmm...ok...so, how do we spin this?"

Posted by: ward5354 | May 28, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama has now wallowed in Bill Clinton's cesspool of lies and deceit and the stench is on him thick. No matter how hard he tries, Obama will never get that smell off himself. This lie is so transparent it might as well be a pane of glass. Obama is incompetent AND corrupt. Using Clinton as cover is just pathetic. We all know Clinton has no problems lying under oath so maybe that is why Obama is using him.

Posted by: MikeJ9116 | May 28, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, so the White House thinks that an acceptable excuse for their months of stonewalling is that they needed time for all of the criminals to get their cover-stories straight? That is so dumb it's funny.

Posted by: the_logician | May 28, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Not a single mention of the law that was violated, Mr. Godzillizza?

Not one mention that, if true, we are looking at a felony?

Mr. Cillizza, you are a joke!

Posted by: McTex | May 28, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Just because "it happens" doesn't make it right. It is what is....sleaze and an illegal effort to control which candidates may run for office.

November 2, 2010, America Rising...

Posted by: hansen2 | May 28, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Remember, 12BarBlues, the media is always biased against whatever it is you believe. They're just insidious like that.

Was there a Drudge link today, or has his crowd suddenly decided to stick around rather than just pop back whenever there's a link?

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 28, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It is always a good thing to confer BEFORE going before cameras so everyone's story will come out the same. But then it becomes one more lie to have to remember how you spun it the last time out. With the internet there is no forgeting or reversing course. It is out there forever.

I guess Ambassador to the UN for Bubba is now in play. Look for it sometime next year after the dust hassettled.

Posted by: tumeroll | May 28, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Sestak bribe impeachable—Big Deal

Now that people are looking for excuses to 86 Obama, they are concerned about the ethics of the law. Where were they when Obama’s eligibility question came forward during the campaign? Where are they now? The Sestak scandal is peanuts compared with a man who lied about his background to fraudulently usurp the WH.

Sestak used the action of Rahm Emanuel, Bob Bauer or whomever from the white house to ace Spector. Now he has decided to clam up. What a weasel! Who in their right mind would vote some one to represent him/her knowing full well the guy has neither ethics nor integrity. Just another lying Democrat!

When votes can be purchased for an American president for three cigarettes negotiated by ACORN, then moral turpitude must be questioned. When so many suspicious actions by Sotoero and his thugs came forward regarding O'fraud's moral turpitude and the public voted for what they hoped would be "Santa Clause", in spite of the flagrant criminal incrimination--then I can only say the public got precisely what it deserved. When people choose to vote for race, unknown background, and an empty suit over integrity, experience and moral responsibility they have sold themselves down the road of perfidy.

Now those who didn't and did vote for him are being penalized by the ignorant who did vote for him. The true evil of this is when people were to convinced to vote against their own best interests believing it was good.

So now the press is screaming foul over Sestak! Yeah, right!

Posted by: usapatriots-shout | May 28, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

This from that pillar of honesty, Bill (I did not have sex with that woman) Clinton?

It does not even pass the laugh test!

Posted by: fantum | May 28, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

My Gosh,
What is Obama spending all of his time doing anyway? The economy is in shambles, the Gulf of Mexico is the biggest ecological disaster in American history, the White House is acting all dodgy hiding information, they refuse to speak openly about any of these subjects. Obama is behaving like a teenage boy who got caught in the bathroom with a dirty magazine... when are the Democrats going to start behaving like a responsible group of leaders and get this country on the right course? If the media is any indication, we are the laughing stock of the world right now. I sure hope we can turn this disastrous trajectory around, it's really embarrassing.

Posted by: bryanabbott | May 28, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

write puff pieces to cover for their man, like they did for John Edwards.

Posted by: alan19


a disbarred lawyer wouldn't lie, would they?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I refuse to believe this story until they identify the high level position that pays nothing and has no value-intrinsic or extrinsic. One more time the BO thinks that he can blatantly lie to the American people. Unless he can prove his ludicrous statements with recordings in the white house, I would hope that the republicans continue to press the issue.

Posted by: cmvairin | May 28, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"I think miller is starting to figure out this story is going nowhere. Now miller wants to blame someone. Who is part of the conspiracy? Who else, but the main stream media, especially Chris Cillizza, who, as we all know, is a "tool of the liberal agenda".

Is this too funny, or what?"

Since this board runs nothing much but R talking points, it is both sad and pathetic, 12Bar. These are truly stoopid people.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse


Obama didn't win because of some "pledge" he made! Obama won by gaming caucuses and then getting superdelegates, like Kwame Kilpatrick, to endorse him. Cillizza needs to stop the Obama spin and begin stating facts like Hillary received more votes during the primary than Obama. Cillizza also needs to state that Obama was behind in the polls when Lehman collapsed.

Face it Cillizza, Obama was the establishment candidate backed by Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, and Clyburn and you failed to realize it, now you spin away on your blog and attempt to rewrite history according to Obama (much like Obama did with his ridiculous memoir which contains many exaggerations and half-truths).

The MSM behaved in an irresponsible and unethical manner during the 2008 election cycle, it is time for some journalists to take back the moral high ground--you can do that Cillizza.

Posted by: Susannah1 | May 28, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

You can bet your last untaxed dollar, that Bubba is flying to Chicago this weekend. That is so he, the south chicago political thugs and it leader (BO) can be all on the same page. Maybe the Bulls will pick up BO as a free agent.

Posted by: rlippert3 | May 28, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

dope in the white house thinks we are dumber than janet napolitano

Posted by: christov1 | May 28, 2010 1:49 PM


"vote for me, hope and change, the earth will heal, the seas will stop rising, I am The One you have been waiting for".

so you see, we are dumber than janet. but especially, liberals.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

This is a non-story simply because the Commies in the media like Cilliza will always write puff pieces to cover for their man, like they did for John Edwards.

Posted by: alan19 | May 28, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

let me get this straight, a guy is expected to give up a possible senate seat in exchange for a non-paying advisor job? paaaaaleeeze. that dope in the white house thinks we are dumber than janet napolitano

Posted by: christov1 | May 28, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

If Obama and his staff get away with this on, it will only be because it has the main stream media there to whitewash the crime scene.

Posted by: millerca1 | May 28, 2010 1:44 PM
--------------------------
I think miller is starting to figure out this story is going nowhere. Now miller wants to blame someone. Who is part of the conspiracy? Who else, but the main stream media, especially Chris Cillizza, who, as we all know, is a "tool of the liberal agenda".

Is this too funny, or what?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza doesn't want to debunk the assumption that all is innocent. Instead, as always, he takes the White House talking points and runs with it. Tell us, doesn't it seem at all strange that the now-simple explanation apparently was not so simple months ago? Please do not patronize us by telling us that this is just a matter of a poorly handled PR matter. This, after all, is the White House that is obsessed with PR.

There is something more here, and Cillizza, the Post, and every other main stream journalist is terrified that they will be given the Fox treatment if they don't fall in line. What we have is a patsy press and some very disciplined, jack boot White House thugs, who know exactly how to make the press bend over and take it.

When the Obama years are over, the biggest failure noted will be that of a press that defrauded the nation.

Posted by: jpfann | May 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I think anyone that believes Bill Clinton is weak in the head.

Posted by: jackson301 | May 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Do you believe this story?

Posted by: aquavivadellafonte | May 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

If this was all there was to the "story"....then why did the President demur when he was asked about this in the press conference on Thursday? Sounds like he could have just spit it out right then. But when you are a conniver and a deceiver, you have to make sure that the basis of your BS stories are all in sync.

Posted by: billdulac | May 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the same thing Rahm emmanual did with Gov. Blago trying to get Valeria Jarret appointed to the Senate?

He got away with that why shouldn't he continue his bribes?

Posted by: maxwellsmart | May 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Let me be clear, Mr. Obama, you are troublesome and our boots are on your throat!

Posted by: ProudConservative1 | May 28, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse


This is got to be a joke and Mr. Cillizza, you a joke for writing it as it could possibly be true. You actually think the public is going to believe that Clinton would have been asked to cut that deal and does anybody think that Sestak would even consider a NON-paying job to through the fight. If Obama and his staff get away with this on, it will only be because it has the main stream media there to whitewash the crime scene.

Posted by: millerca1 | May 28, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

But the real question is...what did Sestak do with the blue dress he was wearing at the time? The stain will be the only one telling the truth. Transparency, yeah, right!

Posted by: arva14 | May 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Just as the Democrats gleefully highlighted every new tax that happened under Bush the first...what's your point?

Posted by: Jackbit | May 28, 2010 1:41 PM
-------------------------------
And what's your point? That Republicans are no different than the hated Democrats?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The WH thinks that the timing of this release, on the long weekend, will quell the interest. Methinks that Sestak has a "blue dress" somewhere in the works - and will expose this fraud in the White House for what he is. And to rope another liar and fraud into the mix to softsell the "story line" is as hilarious as can be. The fall is mighty.....

Posted by: billdulac | May 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

But the real question is...what did Sestak do with the blue dress he was wearing at the time? The stain will be the only one telling the truth. Transparency, yeah, right!

Posted by: arva14 | May 28, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

But the real question is...what did Sestak do with the blue dress he was wearing at the time? The stain will be the only one telling the truth. Transparency, yeah, right!

Posted by: arva14 | May 28, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability."

Just as the Democrats gleefully highlighted every new tax that happened under Bush the first...what's your point?

Posted by: Jackbit | May 28, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

WHAT A SUCK UP ARTICLE BY ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST!!!

HOW DOES "IT" SMELL Cillizza ?

Posted by: codyash95 | May 28, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The WH said nothing "improper" happened.... where's the story?

Of course the WH will tell us what happened.

Their track record (gitmo, terror trials in NYC, 8% unemployment... do I dare go on) on honesty, reliability is zilch.... sorry don't trust WH at all.

Who would trust a lawyer's lawyer? You'd have to be insane.

A harvard trained lawyer cannot explain this, Obama needed ANOTHER lawyer's help... sick.

Posted by: docwhocuts | May 28, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The WH said nothing "improper" happened.... where's the story?

Of course the WH will tell us what happened.

Their track record (gitmo, terror trials in NYC, 8% unemployment... do I dare go on) on honesty, reliability is zilch.... sorry don't trust WH at all.

Who would trust a lawyer's lawyer? You'd have to be insane.

A harvard trained lawyer cannot explain this, Obama needed ANOTHER lawyer's help... sick.

Posted by: docwhocuts | May 28, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Scrollin' past the trollin'....

Does anyone believe zouk's claim that he has a job, a family, or a life?
Four hours collecting other' screeds, sixteen hours posting here, every day. But where's the cat?

Posted by: Noacoler | May 28, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

This story is laughably weak. Come on guys you've had months to cobble together something and this is the best you can do? This doesn't pass the laugh test let alone the smell test.

Posted by: masonjahr | May 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"Our enemies smell weakness"

So, if that's the case, why are you trying to make the president look weaker? Do you want them to attack???

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

***Did Clinton approach Sestak with a used cigar?

Cornell84***

and how many hours have you spent pleasuring yourself just thinking about that cigar....

Posted by: mycomment | May 28, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

You should read up on 18 U.S.C. § 600, it is there to prevent offering a job in exchange for support of a candidate or opposition of a candidate, specifically it was aimed at deals like Nixon offering Warren a position on the Supreme Court in exchange for his support in delivering California in 1968. To use it in the manner you're trying to imply, vitually every Presidnet in recent memory should be fined the $1000 (hardly a high crime, btw), to include Sen Judd gregg for soliciting such an arrangement when he was being looked at for Commerce Secretary. Also, under your legal theory, the RNC and DNC and the congressional campaign arms should be prohibited from recruiting candidates with promises of financial support for their campaigns. And yes, some tangible benefit must change hands, and there must be some activity to take place. To reward someone with a non-paying job in exchange for abstaining from a political activity qualifies neither as support or opposition under the law.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 28, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

***is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy***

no it isn't, chrissie. it's a perfect illustration of how you lazy, panty-sniffing scumbags of the white house press corpse seize the most idiotic and irrelevant nugget and yammer/write about it -- because panty-sniffing is so much more fun than investigating how this government was turned into an incompetent collection of thieving, corrupt republicans over the past eight years.

if only you could waterboarded.

Posted by: mycomment | May 28, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

On the way to baseball yesterday, I heard an NPR piece on unmoderated Comment boards and the trade off involved.

Sure it is total chaos, dominated by the lonely lunatics, ideologues and screamers. These people who can account for 80% of the traffic, or more (viz. The Fix)...but it is oh so good for raw click volume. And as the industry contracts, volume rules.

Bad news of course, the reason the industry is contracting...most people would rather spend their time learning, most people don't bother with lunatics and screamers.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 28, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I can see the exodus to Costa Rica when Barrack Obama is reelected for a second term!

Posted by: tango4hormigas | May 28, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

---

Where they will find a country with no army, socialized medicine, and spectacular beaches.

Posted by: JakeD3 | May 28, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Do you prefer golf or basketball when avoiding the hard work of being president?

You say that you won't rest until every American has a job and the Gulf oil spill is capped and the area cleaned up. Well, why are you vacationing in Chicago over the Memorial Day weekend and then returning to Washington for a Paul McCartney concert?

When you said to your staff, "Plug the damn hole," was it your impression that BP had not yet thought of that, and did it take you five weeks to come up with that solution? What were some of the other ideas you had, if this was your latest and greatest idea, plug the hole?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"advisory role on an intelligence board"
Just what the US needs, yet another intelligence advisor spoiling the broth! Hey, why didn't they at least offer him the position of the director of national intelligence? Admiral Sestak can't be worse than Admiral Blair, and they ain't got no candidates interested in that scapegoat job anyway!

Posted by: Gray62 | May 28, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

don't take my word for it TOMMYBASEBALL

Ask CNN

Our enemies smell weakness:

Attempted terror attacks in the United States are on the rise, and it's only going to get worse, Homeland Security warns.

CNN reported on Thursday that an unclassified intelligence memo states "the number and pace of attempted attacks against the United States over the past nine months have surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period."

Terror organizations will also target the United States with "increased frequency," the memo warned.


Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

@drindl,

Did you misspeak? You mean Ron Paul? Not Rand Paul.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

When are we going to get a real story, Chris, instead of this pathetic bottom-feeding gossip?


How about that Rand Paul voted to repeal DADT -- at least there is some NEWS there.

So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting "don't ask, don't tell" since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow another story about nothing. The fact that Republican outrage over everything Obama is becoming tired and old. They and the media are both becoming a joke! The media runs around with it's tail between it's legs chasing every foolish story put out there by the Republicans no matter how hypocrital!

Posted by: jhop1104 | May 28, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

To offer position in the administration or support for candidacy in exchange for dropping out of the race is common in politics. Majority of it is behind the scene that nobody knows what's transpired and usually about withholding financial donation. You saw that with Bunning by McConnell.

You had such a situation back in 2003 when Bush, with the Republican leadership (Delay) offering to help Nick Smith's(R-MI) son money for helping his candidacy in exchange for his vote in the Medicare Part D prescription benefit and threatened if he didn't. Ultimately he voted for it but before he spoke out about it.

Posted by: beeker25 | May 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

berry and the bitter half have already lost their law licenses so now with clinton they have something in common.

besides lying about everything I mean.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

Bill Clinton employment agency says it all depends on what the word value means.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2
_________________________________
absolutely nothing in that statute has the first thing to do with the Sestak situation. Sestak didn't pay Clinton to try to get the position, and Clinton didn't tell Sestak he could get him a job if Sestak slipped him some cash.
________________________
Cash need not be involved.


Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive. The law also provides:

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code – Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity:

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

No cash need be promised or exchanged. Bill Clinton a friend was told to make a deal. Who told him and what did the president know and when did he know it?

I am not a crook. Richard Nixon. It all depends on the meaning of the word is, is. Bill Clinton. I did not have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Screaming bloody murder about a job offer just seems so trivial by comparison.

Posted by: Gallenod | May 28, 2010 12:47 PM
---------------------------------------
1. This story will disappear in 3 days or so, because there is nothing left to say. Obama-haters will grumble and add it to their list of what is wrong with Obama.

2. Add the Sestak job offer to the fantasy list of "how to get rid of Obama without holding an election". Right after the "he's a Muslim" and "born in Kenya".

3. This story is viewed as a scandal because there is nothing else bigger.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 28, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

bumblingberry: "...Or amped up terror attacks by displaying weakness. and instead of playing golf every weekend...."

Aside from you highly unreliable and perpetually errant say so, what are you basing this screed on?

W has recruited more terrorists for Al Queda than bin laden himself ever could and I have see you a single word of protest from you.

Is it that you support republican's creating terrorists? Could that be what your position really is???

Now that there is a president who is actually taking them out instead of letting them escape you are upset?

Meanwhile, your president was on vacation 8 months out of the year and you are upset that Obama plays golf on a few weekends?

This is your gripe? The Golf Gap? Really?

Why are all of the conservative attacks so often so childish?

I guess you just have to consider the source....

Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | May 28, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive. The law also provides:

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code – Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity:

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

No cash need be promised or exchanged. Bill Clinton a friend was told to make a deal. Who told him and what did the president know and when did he know it?

I am not a crook. Richard Nixon. It all depends on the meaning of the word is, is. Bill Clinton. I did not have sex with that woman...Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 28, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

It is a big deal because anything done by the President since the first day has been always considered an illegal act since he is black and allegedly being a socialist, Marxist, and lacking a birth certificate. They, ultimate ignorant bunch of bigots and morons, will never rest until they see Sarah or Rand in the WH. I can see the exodus to Costa Rica when Barrack Obama is reelected for a second term!

Posted by: tango4hormigas | May 28, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with Gallenod.

there are so many other things wrong with the Obungler adminstration that this will fall by the wayside in comparison.

the oil continues to flow into the gulf

the illegals continue to flow across the border

the money continues to flow out of our treasury

the excuses for incompetence continue to flow from the WH

the polls continue to ebb away from the Dems

the jobs are not coming back, the stock market is still in decline.

I am not personally of the mind that these things can be pinned to a single individual - the Present ident. the entire big government apparatus is incompetent with the liberal congress as the poster child.

the voters have figured this out, to liberals peril.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Clinton was enlisted to talk to Sestak because they were already acquainted (Clinton endorsed Sestak when he first ran for Congress) and nothing shows you're serious about something like sending a former president with the message.

I assume Sestak didn't mention Clinton because he and Clinton considered it a private matter between them. Obama wasn't going reveal Clinton's role until he'd talked with him directly and arranging a meeting like that takes some organizing. Obama also didn't likely know the details of what happened and preferred to take heat for not saying anything immediately instead of for getting some detail wrong.

Yes, it was a rookie mistake by Sestak and the White House took way too long to address this. It doesn't reflect well on them.

But the air is going to whoosh out of this particular balloon in short order. Republicans, of course, will try to keep it inflated as long as possible with as much hot air as they can muster. But this particular mini-tempest will do much less damage than if Sestak, Obama and everyone in between had jumped in earlier with conflicting or erroneous stories.

Republicans should stick with debating things that actually matter: the budget, the deficit, unemployment, financial regulation, the environment, etc. Screaming bloody murder about a job offer just seems so trivial by comparison.

Posted by: Gallenod | May 28, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Wait I forgot one measure.

I have not uselessly spent over a trillion and a half dollars of your money that you don't have.

So yeah, you're right, I am not as "efficient" as Obungler in that regard.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the conservatives railing against the very notion of behind-the-scenes deals here really believe no Republican -- including, but not limited to, the one who is running against Joe Sestak -- has engaged or will in the future engage in behind-the-scenes deals.

My favorite nonsensical comment to this effect was one of the ones yesterday on the Dick Blumenthal post, in which the commenter blurted out something to the effect of, "People who support liars should vote for Blumenthal, people who don't should vote against Blumenthal" -- cleverly not mentioning that Blumenthal's opponent is Linda McMahon, who, as a pro wrestling promoter, has probably lied at least once.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 28, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Why hasn't John Ensign resigned yet? Why don't we have a story on that, Chris?

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

how much more efficient our highly educated president is versus the idiot dingleberry.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 12:35


you're right, I haven't stopped the oil leak either. Or lowered unemployment. Or annoyed our allies. Or bowed to our enemies. Or amped up terror attacks by displaying weakness. and instead of playing golf every weekend, I am on the boat.

But I am lost. how is Obungler more efficient than I? Seems like a draw.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Liberals will now deploy the "depends on the meaning of the word "is" " defense.

As if that will convince anyone that this does not stink.

all the empty headed obamabots don't need any actual evidence to continue to defend this utter incompetent and corrupt misfit. It is lying bill clinton all over again. when the blue dress gets back, a different excuse will form.

Pouncing on WH interns - everyone does it.

Liberal ethics in action.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

so it's done all the time, by both parties, it's not illegal, and not unethical.

and I don't think congressmen are considered federal employees, so I think he would have been eligible, but so what if he weren't? that just means there was a mistake made in connection with a common, lawful, and ethical proposition.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 28, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama's 3 hour tour of Louisiana...

Regularly spends 5 hours on golf course...

Posted by: bumblingberry


Compare that to the 24 hours a day that dingleberry spends on this blog and you realize how much more efficient our highly educated president is versus the idiot dingleberry.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I bet there isn't a liberal far-left Democrap Socialist commentor here, or on any Main Stream Media's payroll in the entire country that would accept that phony excuse that the WH has come up with re. Sestak's job offer, if the president were G.W. Bush. There'd be a Special Procecutor named by With Comrade Obama though, his word is gospel. It figures.

Posted by: armpeg | May 28, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Even us simple rubes can smell a lie this plain.

Posted by: bumblingberry

It's refreshing to see dingleberry admit that he's a rube. That saves us all a lot of time.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are making a big deal out of this because they think they can, and have long since given up worrying about hypocrisy charges. Reagan did this publicly, and Republicans and Democrats have done it from time immemorial. It's lawful, ethical, and just plain politically smart. So Republicans are throwing mud in hopes that folks are dumb enough to let some stick whether it should or not.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 28, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Vernon "employment Agency" Jordan should now be investigated for finding Lewinsky that job, before her presence cost slick willie an election?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The writer thinks these bribes happen all the time, so what's the big deal.

What better explanation for why the public is abandoning newspapers in droves.

These "journalists" don't know a story when they see it, or they cover up what they want to cover up.

This is why no comment/vote board.

Posted by: llrllr | May 28, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Liberal media spin -- meeting at the Hamptons to cover their leader.

Posted by: Cornell1984

You mean at Doug Hampton's? And John Ensign is going to be there? That WOULD be a lot of fun! I'd be willing to bet that Mrs. Hampton won't be there.

Posted by: jasperanselm | May 28, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

Bill Clinton employment agency says it all depends on what the word value means.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2
_________________________________
absolutely nothing in that statute has the first thing to do with the Sestak situation. Sestak didn't pay Clinton to try to get the position, and Clinton didn't tell Sestak he could get him a job if Sestak slipped him some cash.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 28, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama's 3 hour tour of Louisiana...

Regularly spends 5 hours on golf course...

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

On the White House website is a link to the PIAB. The first paragraph states

"The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government."

Seems Rep Sestak was not eligible for the job that he was to drop out of the Senate race to accept.

Posted by: tomhamand | May 28, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

And we should care because....it has never been done before? Yeah. Right. A real story would be that politicians are appalled and will use this to clean up politics. This kind of stuff happens in the workplace...so the public is suppose to do...what?

Posted by: ilcn | May 28, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

The story that the White House would enlist such a high-ranking emissary — a former president is just about the highest-ranking you can get — to deliver such a meager offer strikes House Republican investigators as highly implausible. “The messenger is huge,” says one investigator, “and the message is puny.” If the White House took the trouble to involve an extremely busy former president, then the issue must have been a pretty high priority.

In addition, the brief White House statement — it doesn’t quite fill a page and a half — leaves many questions unanswered. “This doesn’t give a full accounting of what Rahm Emanuel’s role in this was, what [deputy White House chief of staff] Jim Messina’s role was, or whether any of the techniques used in the Romanoff matter were used here,” says the investigator. (That is a reference to reports that the White House offered another candidate, Colorado’s Andrew Romanoff, a job if he would not challenge Democratic incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.) Also, the investigator notes, the offering of uncompensated advisory positions would still violate laws prohibiting exchanging jobs for political acts.

The bottom line is, the brief White House statement falls far short of laying the Sestak matter to rest. The next move is Sestak’s — we’ll likely hear from him soon. And then Republicans will keep asking the questions they have been asking for three months now. Finally, we’ll have to see whether the Democrats who called on the White House and Sestak to come clean are satisfied by this latest version of events.
Byron

Even us simple rubes can smell a lie this plain.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"For him to have bragged that he was offered anything to get out of the race was incredibly [politically] stupid."

Oh yeah, you don't have to be Sigmund Freud to figure out what that silly smirk at the corners of the mouth of this ordinarily very serious person was all about...as he kept saying how 'honest' he was being to acknowledge the deal he was offered, but that he just could not go into any detail.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 28, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

Bill Clinton employment agency says it all depends on what the word value means.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | May 28, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

jimbob5: the legal memo does not suggest that offering the position was legal because it was unpaid, so your "yes, but it's prestigious and that's valuable" comeback is also beside the point. the memo says that it's perfectly legal, ethical and common for a party to discuss options for candidates to avoid primary battles within the party. period.

the only subject here is how a non-story became a story, and whether the WH strategy of letting the story grow until it got all the facts right will turn out to have been a good one.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 28, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"This is why there's a crisis in the gulf..."

Oh whew, here I thought the greatest environmental disaster in American history was happening there, now that I know the bogus "crisis" was caused by a small band of websurfers, I feel a lot better.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 28, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Dick Durbin is now a Republican?

drivl has gone over the edge of sanity, although, admittedly, it was a very short trip.

this loon thinks that posting liberal garbage all day is noble yet faults anyone for ever posting anything at all with even a slight repub slant. what a total loser.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 28, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

So Bauer's memo release admits there was "direct or indirect" propositioning of Sestak.
In Bauer's legalese, there is no crime as no job (with pay) was offered. But even if this is true, the job would presumably have provided prestige which has "worth" in political circles.
It will be interesting to hear the view of the Special Prosecutor, appointed after November, to Bauer's acknowledgment.

Posted by: jimbob5 | May 28, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

So Bauer's memo release admits there was "direct or indirect" propositioning of Sestak.
In Bauer's legalese, there is no crime as no job (with pay) was offered. But even if this is true the job would presumably have provided prestige which has "worth" in political circles.
It will be interesting to hear the view of the Special Prosecutor, appointed after November, to Bauer's acknowledgment.

Posted by: jimbob5 | May 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I didn't read the post, but I'm going to take a guess as to what it contains.

"Because idiots in the press keep looking to Matt Drudge to write their headlines"

Did I get it? Am I at least close?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 28, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"Either way, this provides fodder for the perfect press goose chase and nearly boundless opportunity for innuendo."


"This is why there's a crisis in the gulf in the first place. it's easier for a small band of websurfers that now passes for the DC press corps to make something out of nothing, and then critique the administration for "mishandling" than it is to figure out what's actually going on in the world that we don't know about."

Exactly. Apparently all it takes to be a 'journalist' now is the ability to cut and paste Republican press releases.

Posted by: drindl | May 28, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Did Clinton approach Sestak with a used cigar?

Chris tries hard -- exhaustive review -- to cover for the criminals. Truly, the Washington Post is becoming a poorly edited version of the Onion.

Liberal media spin -- meeting at the Hamptons to cover their leader.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | May 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I have read that a siting congressman can not sit on the PIAB, an Executive Department Commission. It seems as if Rahm Emanuel and Bill Clinton would have known this. It is unlikely Rep Sestak would have resigned to accept it. I have also read that Congressman Sestak could not have become Secretary of the Navy since he had not been retired for 5 years as required. Therefore that rumor seems to be unlikely. There is much reporting to be done here instead of commenting on documents released by the Presidents lawyers. We need to hear from Rep. Sestak and this will not be over until he has spoken. The truth will come out, it always does - eventually.

Posted by: tomhamand | May 28, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

1] Assume the WH counsel has only told that part of the story that can be verified, absent an incriminating admission; OR

2] assume the WH counsel has told the whole story.

Either way, this provides fodder for the perfect press goose chase and nearly boundless opportunity for innuendo.

Thus Mr. Sestak has shot himself in the foot, even 'though his refusal to deal should absolve him of blame, if any conduct by anyone was blameworthy.
For him to have bragged that he was offered anything to get out of the race was incredibly [politically] stupid.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 28, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

What? You mean the White House opted to actually look into a situation to see what happened, rather than just blow it off with mindless platitudes? Well, geez, that's not going to win them any elections.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 28, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

This is why there's a crisis in the gulf in the first place. it's easier for a small band of websurfers that now passes for the DC press corps to make something out of nothing, and then critique the administration for "mishandling" than it is to figure out what's actually going on in the world that we don't know about.

Posted by: jrbarry63 | May 28, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

IF the White House actually offered Sestak a job, how is that Sestak's fault? And if the White House DID offer Sestak a job, how is it his fault for declining it?

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 28, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Why did it take so long for the White House to "come up" with the story?

In a court of law, Clinton would be discredited because of his prior lieing under oath.

I am no certain that the White House made a good choice in choosing a disbarred, impeached liar as their front man.

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 28, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"'How do you make something out of nothing?,' asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. 'By acting guilty when you're innocent.'"

And this is the difference between coverage of the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration: The latter is assumed to be innocent.

Posted by: ExurbanJon | May 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

This story of Sestak, Clinton, Rahm deserves a full WaPo comment board.

Posted by: jdcw | May 28, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company