Obama's Sestak Memo: Nothing Improper

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:04:06 AM EST
Tags: Joe Sestak (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Republicans need to find another issue. White House Counsel Robert Bauer issued a memo (available here) on the Joe Sestak "job" talks today.

An unpaid, advisory position within the executive branch is not a job.

We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

[More...]

Bill Clinton did nothing improper.

The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House. By virtue of his career in public service, including distinguished military service, Congressman Sestak was viewed to be highly qualified to hold a range of advisory positions in which he could, while holding his House seat, have additional responsibilities of considerable potential interest to him and value to the Executive Branch.
There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.

Republican attempts, such as those by Rep. Rep. Darrell Issa, to turn this into a violation of 18 USC 201 will go nowhere. Nor is a special prosecutor needed. Let's get back to things that matter.

< The Political Benefits Of Talking Impeachment | "Top Kill" Stems Oil Leak....For Now >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Sestak Memo: Nothing Improper | 88 comments (88 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The question still remains (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:12:34 AM EST

Why did the WH initially deny any conversation about this took place?
Why did it take 4 months to say "We talked about an advisory role"?

Ok, that's two questions. :)

Really? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:29:02 AM EST

A better question is: why are some beating a dead horse? The GOP has its reasons, but for those on the other side of the aisle, not sure what is to be gained.


Because it isn't dead. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:56:48 PM EST

Somebody is lying.

Who is the question.


Your outrage is almost funny (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by mmc9431 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:43:53 PM EST

After the eight years of GWB cronyism, lies leading the nation to war, torture and total incompetence, I would think it would take a president killing someone on national TV to justify impeachment.

Then again if it was a Republican, I'm sure we could get John Yoo to defend him on grounds of executive power.


: Oh give the guy some slack (none / 0) (#102)
by jondee on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:09:35 PM EST

you would've had to have been there to believe the way Jim swung into action when those Abramoff and Delay things were going on..
The man's service to cause of evenhanded justice has always been unswerving.

Er, um, begging the question (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:57:51 PM EST

And it took them (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:06:11 PM EST

two months to come up with this?

Laughable and amateurish. I expect better from Obama's minions.


: meh. (none / 0) (#40)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:08:37 PM EST

Don't recall the White House (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:06:45 PM EST

ever denying it. When did that happen?


February (none / 0) (#51)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:26:59 PM EST

In March, Gibbs couldn't give answers to the press about it - kept saying things like "I hadn't heard about it", "I don't know - I'll get back to you," "Still don't know" etc.


: That's what I thought (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:50:47 PM EST

Not what I would call "denying" it by any means. Ducking the question, sure. That's what you do when you don't want to deny something.

Just because a position is "unpaid"... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:17:27 AM EST

doesn't mean there was nothing in it for Sestak...you get connections for a post "public service" job at a lobby or on the board of a corporation.

As far as government shadiness goes it hardly rates...but shady is shady.

Not enough in it for Sestak, apparently. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:03:58 PM EST

You can make alotta... (none / 0) (#21)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:44:18 PM EST

connections for post-"service" paydays in a 6 year senate term.

Or in fairness, maybe he is the needle in a haystack stand-up guy...who knows. But then I'd have to wonder whats he doing in such a nasty business.


As can a member of the House of (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:49:36 PM EST

Representatives.


Chump change... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:51:53 PM EST

compared to the influence you can trade in the senate.

I mean they let my boys Paul and Kuch in the House...the senate is much more exclusive.


Although Senators, once elected, (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:53:16 PM EST

don't seem to want to leave. Reference the discussion on aged Senators yesterday.


: Some get high on the status... (none / 0) (#109)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM EST

some get high on the power, others get high on the bread.

So why did they did think (none / 0) (#140)
by BrassTacks on Mon May 31, 2010 at 01:47:00 AM EST

It would be enough to get him out of the race? And why did it take over 3 months to explain this?!


Should have known (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by MO Blue on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:19:43 AM EST

It was all Clinton's fault.

{super duper snark alert}

I think this job thing is a big PLUS for Sestak. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by steviez314 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:21:52 AM EST

He can run as the guy who said no to 2 presidents, just so he could serve the people of PA.

I think it reflects very well on him.

his ratings are up (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:22:34 AM EST

Unless, of course (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:30:12 AM EST

Someone decides to pursue this and put both Sestak and Clinton under oath about their conversation.

That whole thing about Sestak's brother (and campaign counsel) meeting with the WH about what the WH would say in its statement looks like the two parties getting their story straight, since Sestak has never said (in the many times he made the claim), that it was "unpaid".

It's always the lies and cover-ups that get these people in trouble - not the actual act. When will they ever learn??


Under oath ... (sigh) (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by brodie on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:35:13 AM EST

Just like I was posting about in the other thread. And some doubters are already off and running on the impeachment track.


: jb aka Javert will not be deterred (2.00 / 1) (#43)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:12:55 PM EST

And to take after Bill too.....But if it were Hillary maybe there might be a pause....

: Hey (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:37:27 AM EST

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but who knows? They don't even have to get them under oath - just threaten to and then say "Sestak and Clinton are hiding from telling the truth. The WH is hiding from the truth! The most transparent administration! Blah, blah, blah."

Nothing to see here, move along... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by DaveCal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:37:11 AM EST

I know you'd like this to be the end of it, Jeralyn, and you may get your wish. But if you want to be intellectually honest about this matter, I think you have to admit that there's a lot of smoke and therefore probably fire there as well. It definately needs to be investigated:

Sestak said he was offered a "job", not an unpaid advisory position to do on top of his congressional job.
If this is legal, why did they use Clinton as an intermediary, instead of having the discussion directly?
Wouldn't and unpaid position still be of value and violate one of the several statutes in play?
Why did it take three plus weeks of stonewalling to concoct (I mean describe) the facts here?

This whole thing stinks. if everything was above board, then this info should have come out a long time ago with no stonewalling.

No, Jeralyn, I think you if you got this kind of an answer in a case you were investigating, the hair on your neck would stand straight up.

What happened to changing Washington and all the transparency?

LIAR !!!

Actually (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:39:45 AM EST

It's been almost 4 months - not 3 weeks. Gibbs was asked about this in February, when Sestak first said it. He was aksed 5 or 6 times in March, and kept saying things like "I'll look into it - haven't had time." And now since Sestak won, it's been more of an issue.


Reagan did the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:11:32 PM EST

with Sen Hayakawa....Take a look at Big Orange for details.

Are you really offended Sestak was offered a job?

And assuming the 'worst," that Sestak was offered a paid postion with the adminstation on the express condition that he drop out of the Senate race, still nothing illegal there....

If you take a full time position, it is only appropraite that you give up all other work--in order to devote yourself to the position full time.....

So, it is not a traditional quid pro quo....The alleged quid pro quo that everyone is barking about is that Sestak agree to work full time in in the job offered and give up all other employment....

So, the violation, if there be one, would be the bare fact of offering Sestak a job.....So, you can never offer anyone a job if the job requires them to give another job as an elected position in the government?

A true quid pro quo would have been a deal whereby Sestak would endorse Specter, or agree to refrain from attacking Specter....But just giving up his Senate run? Nope, he has to do that to take the job....

But I can see the Republicans are all eager to get their Ken Starr hats on---that is how the game is played right?


I am offended (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:17:43 PM EST

That it took the administration 4 months to answer the d@mn question, which, if they did nothing wrong, should have been responded to in February when it came up.

You apparently, are of the opinion that because the WH gives an excuse, it must be true. Of course that means the Democratic Senate candidate from Pennsylvania is a liar - it must be true - the WH said so.

Transparency indeed.


I don't care if you are offended (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:25:27 PM EST

A lot of politics goes on behind the scenes....I am glad to see Bill agreeing to work with Obama....

"Liar"? Only according to your interpretation of Sestak's comments. Both accounts make sense and sound compatible to me.

I see no possible illegal conduct even under the worst case scenario....


Politics? (3.00 / 2) (#55)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:30:18 PM EST

Four months to write the memo that came out today.

Sure. Okay.

It wouldn't take a 1-L that long, but it takes the WH.


So, you know they have been (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:37:35 PM EST

writing the memo for four months? Maybe it did not appear there was any need to address this until recently?


It wouldn't have mattered if it was 8 months (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by christinep on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:06:48 PM EST

If there is no substance to a political charge, the timing of the response should not matter. The only people who would seem to be red-faced with anger should be red-faced with embarassment <for going so far on a limb on their own for nothing.>


: Only if (none / 0) (#136)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:10:36 PM EST

You think people will buy this latest story from the WH. People have short attention spans, so by November, they will forget. But this was a huge "drop-the ball" moment for the WH and like snow, it will accummulate with other bone-headed stuff (on top of the truly incompetent stuff like the oil spill response).

Well (none / 0) (#72)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:40:40 PM EST

I know the press has been asking questions for 4 months and the WH has changed stories several times.


Gibbs has been asked about it many, many, times (none / 0) (#142)
by BrassTacks on Mon May 31, 2010 at 02:01:42 AM EST

since February the press has asked, over and over and over about what Sesnek was offered. Yeah, there was a reason to come up a story. I can't imagine what held it up for 3 months! Bill was too busy for lunch and a little chit chat at the WH to get their stories straight?


To answer your questions (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:21:38 PM EST

1. Job can mean a lot of things...

2. Sestak was a Clinton ally. Hillary supporter. Who would have more influence with him than Bill? And do you think Bill would want to be a bag man for Obama on something illegal or unethical? That Bill was the one who approached Sestak tells me this was handled deftly--and legally.....It was Sestak who blew it...I hope Obama is using Bill behind the scenes a lot more...

3. Doesn't matter. Paid or unpaid. If you offer anyone a paid position in the administration, they have to give up any elected office. Just ask Salazar, Napolitano, and Judd Gregg (who declined.)

4. Why not stonewall. It is a politically sensitive issue....No need to rat out Bill unless Sestak keeps blowing it. It is legal but not all that palatable politically.

I am actually pleased to see Obama allied with and using Bill....Very good development....


Yup, can get their story together (none / 0) (#141)
by BrassTacks on Mon May 31, 2010 at 01:53:58 AM EST

Gibbs has been asked about this by the press since February. He couldn't come up with an answer until after Clinton visited the WH on Thursday. There are too many holes in the story. I heard today that the AG in PA could call for an investigation. Since he's a republican, and running for office, he may just do that.
Then there's the guy in CO who said he too was offered a job.
Maybe they sent Clinton because he wouldn't have to be fired like Rahm would have to be if he it.


Aisle? What aisle? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by PatHat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:40:14 AM EST

The WH's actions should make it abundantly clear that Obama is more comfortable with the middle of the aisle than with his constituency on the left. A Sestak victory might possibly put some fear in the DNC regarding the average Dem voter continuing their support for this Administration, but I think they are just going where the money is.

I, for one, am very disappointed in Obama so far and there is less than a 50% chance that I would vote for him in 2012.

Unfortunately, this is SOP for (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by MO Blue on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:48:05 AM EST

both parties.

I would prefer the WH and party leadership stay out of primary battles and let the voters decide who they want to represent them.

Must required an awful lot of (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:51:03 AM EST

Kool-Aid to so easily wash down this flimsy rationalization from the WH.

When? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by DaveCal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:57:19 AM EST

What's it going to take for fair minded and reasonable people in this country (including the press) to quit buying this crap from ANY administration, quit defending them so quickly and unconditionally, and start demanding as much from our government (in terms of honesty and integrity) as we demand from our employees, family and friends?

It really shouldn't be so hard.

I don't believe one word of this. Don't know how anyone can...

: Aloha (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by sj on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:03:45 PM EST

I know you'll be as articulate there as you are here.
Pomaika`i

I said there was nothing to this (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:16:36 PM EST

in the first place. I don't see how it matters whether the job was paid or not.

I still don't think BTD's "Deeds II" prediction is right about Sestak, if he can raise money.

The idea that everybody is (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:27:23 PM EST

shocked, shocked, I tell you, that somebody would try to lure somebody else out of running for election with a job or whatever is frankly ludicrous. Paid job or honorary, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly legitimate chess move, IMHO.


No. It is illegal. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:01:25 PM EST

And lots of "chess moves" are illegal.


As has been pointed out before (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:10:03 PM EST

there's nothing remotely illegal about offering somebody a job, even an active pol in the process of deciding whether to run for something. There's no quid pro quo involved because there never has to be. If you take the job, you won't be able to run for something else. Perfectly simple and straightforward.


Not entirely true. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:25:15 PM EST

See 18 U.S.C.§ 600

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

And 18 U.S.C.§ 211:

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.

And 18 U.S.C.§ 595:

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by
the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof,or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any
corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any educational or research institution,
establishment, agency, or system which is supported in whole or in part by any state or political subdivision thereof, or by the
District of Columbia or by any Territory or Possession of the United States; or by any recognized religious, philanthropic or
cultural organization.

We will never know if these apply to this case or not, but your statement, taken as a general proposition, is just completely incorrect.


Indict the ambassadors! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:30:54 PM EST

: Obama's best use of this strategy (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:33:49 PM EST

was sending Jon Huntsman on a slow boat to China.....He could have been a very dangerous opponent.
As it stands, I would predict a Hillary v. Huntsman election in 2016.

How can you offer (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:31:33 PM EST

a job to a Senator without violating the law in your opinion? Of course, the Senator has to give up his or her job to take another "job."

"Consideration" would entail something other than what you are required to do in order to take the position.

Is your hatred of Obama so deep that you want Bill investigated just as was the case in Whitewater?


Your analogy is faulty (none / 0) (#68)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:38:37 PM EST

Sestak wasn't "giving up a job" - he has a job - as a Congressman. He is running for higher office - something the voters get to decide. I'm not an election law expert, but it's pretty obvious that this is not the same thing as a President picking a Senator for an ambassadorship (something voters DON'T get to decide).

In effect, if they offered Sestak a plum job with the intent of depriving the voters, then that's an entirely different matter.

And now, we will never know what really happened, so it's a moot point.


Wow, you are really straining (4.00 / 3) (#88)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:54:01 PM EST

on this one.....Are you that motivated to find (invent) fault?

You can't be Senator or member of the House if you accept a position in the administration--which is the hypothetical all you Ken Starrs are working with....

You can't seriously believe that it would be okay for Sestak to moonlight as Senator while working in the adminstration......Would it not be reasonable to make sure anyone taking a position devote his full attention to the job rather than trying become a Senator in a few short months...A campaign would take a lot of time. How about insisting that a person devote his or her time to the new job rather than campaigning for a new job? Would you really hire anyone who would not agree to that? It would be negligent to hire someone who was not fully devoted to the new job.

So, asking Salazar to give up his Senate seat (and his re-election campaign) to join the adminstration is wrong? That deprived the people of Colorado the person they actually elected....


Please explain (none / 0) (#95)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:59:13 PM EST

How Sestak would be "working as a Senator while moonlighting in the administration"?

He's not a Senator, get it?

It's not the "crime" - it's always the cover-up.

That's the problem here. Why you can't see that maybe there are legitimate questions, but instead keep straining to defend the administration ("They did nothing wrong!") is beyond logic.


The scenario (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:07:03 PM EST

you Javerts put foward is that Sestak would agree to take a "job" in the administration while still running for the Senate.....How could you do both?....

If he wins, then he has to quit his adminitration job to begin his job as Senator in January 2011. In the meantime, he is running for Senate--taking up considerable time.

Do you really not get this? Or are you playing a game of semantics to concoct some alleged crime? Desperately scouring the statutory language hoping to find something, anything, to create just a hint of possible criminal wrondgoing....

If you are politically offended, then, okay whatever--I find it silly but some might not like the way politics is done.

To suggest a crime was committed is beyond silly.

So many things wrong with your statement (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:12:08 PM EST

Sigh.

Sestak would agree to take a "job" in the administration while still running for the Senate.....How could you do both?....

Uh, no. The whole point was he would take a job in the administration and immediately drop out of the race, thereby leaving the field clear for Specter.

To suggest a crime was committed is beyond silly

Uh, I don't know if a crime was committed (and neither do you). But I do know that the response has been shady and squirrely at best. Which has been my problem all along. Just like "Plug the d@mn whole!" all I've wanted is "Give an honest answer!" But I guess that won't happen because no way do I believe the version of the story that came out today.


Of course, you would (none / 0) (#107)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:18:35 PM EST

immediately drop out of the race....I would expect nothing less if I were hiring him....

I would hire someone who is publicly trying to get another job that quickly? Not....I want my guy to do my work, not having one foot out the door.

You really don't get this.....Oy.....


Ah I see. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:24:39 PM EST

I get why you're so bunched up about this now - you are completely confused as to what was really going on.

The question was: Did the WH offer Sestak a job with the administration to drop out of the Senate primary race (in effect, bribe him to drop out) to clear the way for Specter (before the primary voting day). That's it. That's what people are questioning. It has nothing to do with him taking an administration job, then quitting in a few months if he wins the Senate seat.

It is illegal to hold jobs in two different branches at the same time, so your scenario of him 1)Being a Congressman, 2)Running for Senate, and 3)doing an administration job, not only makes no sense, it could never happen.


So, he could (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:39:47 PM EST

accept a "job" in the administration and then still run in the Primary? Really? It makes a difference that it was the Primary? As opposed to the General Election....

So, Sestak would start work in the Administration, or agree to start work, and then still campaign for the Senate....And if he wins the Primary, then he quits his administration job or drops out from the Senate race?

You really believe this....Wow.....

Of course you can't hold two jobs....So asking Sestak to not break the law (your conclusion here) by making sure he does not hold, and is not seeking, two conflicting positions--that's illegal?? So, it is illegal to ask Sestak to not do something that would be illegal....

You seem to think he could just still run in the Primary although he had already committed to another position in the administration--and, you say it would be illegal for him to hold both positions....

He would just run for fun in the Primary....without having any intention of actually winning or taking the seat? Or, on the other hand, he would agree to the administration job intending to bail within months if he won? The administration should make sure that wasn't the case....


NO NO NO NO (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:59:26 PM EST

You are still confused, I see.

accept a "job" in the administration and then still run in the Primary? Really? It makes a difference that it was the Primary? As opposed to the General Election....
So, Sestak would start work in the Administration, or agree to start work, and then still campaign for the Senate....And if he wins the Primary, then he quits his administration job or drops out from the Senate race?

No. The allegations were that the WH offered him a job. In return for that job offer, he would immediately drop out of the race (i.e. not run in the Primary) and not challenge Specter. He would then start work in the administration.

Uh, no - that seems to be your position from your comments.

There is no way he campaigns or runs for the Senate, under this scenario, see? If he accepted the job offer, he now has nothing to do with the Senate race.

It's pretty easy. I don't know why you don't understand.


: Last attempt (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:14:34 PM EST

If you can't hold both jobs at the same time, why not ask him to choose which one he wants?
My hypotheticals show he would have had to drop out of the Senate race if he agreed to work for the administraion. Some news flash. You agree my hypotheticals are not realistic. So do I--that was the point of the hypotheticals....You see we agree....

I'm more bothered that Obama... (5.00 / 6) (#22)
by Dadler on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:45:47 PM EST

...would think Specter is worth the effort. Blah.

Do unpaid advisors have a chummy clique (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Joan in VA on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:53:16 PM EST

like the Senate? Are they treated with deference and ego-stroking? Didn't think so. I don't see how an unpaid advisory position would draw anyone out of a Senate primary. Pols aren't in the game for unpaid service to their country. They can always do that if they lose. So that makes it somewhat harder for me to believe that the offer was as stated.

: In the context of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:56:32 PM EST

"you shouldn't do this"? I don't see why not.

A deal's a deal (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:04:44 PM EST

They made a deal with Specter when he was considering switching parties to support him, and they lived up to their end of it-- mostly.

Actually, if I were Specter, I'd be the most po'd person out there about this whole story. Bill Clinton offering Sestak an unpaid advisory position if he didn't run isn't exactly going to the mattresses to get him out and help Specter.

OK (none / 0) (#52)
by PatHat on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:29:14 PM EST

I forgot about this part. If this was the quid pro quo for Spector jumping to the Dems, then I at least understand it.


: Not the whole deal (none / 0) (#133)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:52:13 PM EST

but part of it. The other part was an assurance from Reid he'd get to keep his seniority as if he'd always been a Dem.

Looks like this also happened in CO (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:08:01 PM EST

From SF Examiner:

White House reporters need to ask about Romanoff job offer, too

In particular, little attention has been paid to allegations that the White House made a very similar offer to Andrew Romanoff to get out of the Colorado senate primary where he is challenging incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. L'Affaire Sestak looks eeirly similar to what happened in Colorado, yet has received little scrutiny in the national media.
...

Looks like and allegations? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:30:03 PM EST

Let's try some facts.

Fact: Romanoff has never said, hinted or insinuated that he was offered a job to drop out of the primary.

Fact:

A popular state House speaker, Romanoff has had a long interest in issues of global poverty and had talked to the administration about a possible job in early spring. White House officials said those discussions stopped when Romanoff began suggesting he might run for higher office in Colorado.
Bennet's allies have suggested that Romanoff followed an erratic, even grasping path to the primary after his bid to be appointed to the seat by Gov. Bill Ritter in January failed - looking for a job in the administration, traveling to the Middle East and Africa, and applying to become head of the Colorado Children's Campaign, a children's advocacy organization.
Early this year, Romanoff "was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration," White House spokesman Abrams said. "At that time there were some initial conversations, but no job was ever offered."

I know this is a real hot topic for you and your wingnut friends on the internet today, but there is nothing there. Which explains why there hasn't been any discussion of it in the national media.


When that bastion of "conservative" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:37:23 PM EST

reporting - the SF Examiner is raising questions, it's not my doing.


Whatever. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:42:42 PM EST

Keep grasping at those straws. Or more like flinging crap against a wall to see what sticks.

Either way I notice you can't or won't address the inconvenient facts of the matter.


Mesina initiated the contact (none / 0) (#96)
by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:59:49 PM EST

Whether a quid-pro-quo was on the table or not, when the WH Deputy CoS starts playing these kind of cat and mouse games relating to candidates and elections, it is playing with fire. Perception is as powerful as reality.


: Again (Sigh)... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:18:53 PM EST

Romanoff was not a candidate for anything at the time.
Now, if you want to talk about his (Romanoff's) overinflated sense of entitlement, I'd be more than happy to have that discussion.
Your perception of reality, not so much.

Why Colorado is "hot" for the right (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by christinep on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:28:55 PM EST

on the topic of alleged job offers...because their own situation with the Senate race in Colorado has become so messy & unpredictable with the newly-annointed top line candidate Buck vs the establishment-favored candidate J Norton, what else are they going to do? Y'see, CO Repubs thought they would take over the Bennet seat with CO Dems ostensibly divided in a primary. Lo & behold! The Repubs find themselves in their own primary, and a nasty one at that with teabagger Buck in the lead. (Same with the gubernatorial race.) The Bennet v. Romanoff was for Dems is mild by comparison. SO, the Republicans are doing what they do best: Trying to change the subject.


Moot? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:50:50 PM EST

...having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision : it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.

Yup, although for those who are itching to see Obama out of office, the point is hardly moot, evidentially.

Obama broke the law, and used a Clinton, once again to do it...

GOP are lapping it up, and looking foolish for it.

This is bordering on funny (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by christinep on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:58:20 PM EST

My husband & I actually did laugh earlier today about the Republicans' latest wrapped-up-in-a-knot trap. Who knows? Maybe the WH sat back while the wingers upped the rant about Sestak in the last week. Now, you have Sestak looking strong & direct; the WH just making a check of interest level through the mutual friend; and, even Bush II's former general counsel saying nothing wrong with the approach. And, the funniest part being that--with former President Clinton being the appropriate intermediary--it has got to be maddening, and yet another misfire.

I guess this is just the (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by BTAL on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:30:31 PM EST

"normal" reaction to a "non" issue.

snip from Politico:

For his part, Clinton was in Arkansas Friday campaigning for embattled Sen. Blanche Lincoln but declined to answer reporters' questions about his involvement in the Sestak case.
Secret Service, Clinton staff and Lincoln volunteers were aggressive, and times physical, in attempting to block journalists from getting near the former president as he shook hands following the rally.

Will wait patiently for the all the civil rights liberals defense of this action.

I give credit when credit is due (3.66 / 3) (#101)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:07:24 PM EST

I applauded the stimulus - it's helping me out by paying most of my COBRA coverage.

I applauded that he signed the Ledbetter law.

I applaud the fact that a close relative and friends work in the administration and get paid for doing something they believe in.

I applaud the fact he took on health care (even though the way he did it $ucked).

As a (metro) Detroiter, I applaud that the auto companies were saved.

I applaud that he can speak in complete sentences.

But on this Sestak matter - the WH (it's not just him - Axelrod, Gibbs, etc.) get a big fat "F" - all when it was completely unnecessary. He has earned no credit here.

You talk of cultists, but I think you need to look inward to ask yourself why you people around here are not allowed to ask legitimate questions of this administration for acts that, had the Bush administration done them, you would be the first one screaming bloody murder.

It's all about the cover up, baby.

: I have criticized Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by MKS on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:11:32 PM EST

And I am a supporter of his.
You must have missed my posts on his oil drilling policy--pre-Deep Horizon spill.....
You are so enthralled to you own bias that you always criticize even on stupid little things like this.....

Uh oh, Bowers has spoken (none / 0) (#82)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:48:30 PM EST

That's almost as bad as Zogby.

Polls (none / 0) (#84)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:50:50 PM EST

A few months ago said the same thing.


The link in Bowers post (none / 0) (#91)
by MO Blue on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:57:10 PM EST

gives the results of various polls that were the basis for his statement. I don't think Zogby was one of them but I only did a quick review.


: I'm not disputing the polls (none / 0) (#126)
by andgarden on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:59:33 PM EST

I refer to his prediction. . .

Sestak had better hope he wins. (none / 0) (#113)
by mmc9431 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:34:27 PM EST

I think he's burnt too many bridges to survive in politics if he loses.

: Someone would hire him (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:37:10 PM EST

He was a 3 star admiral in the navy. Boeing, CACI, Lockeed or Northrupp Grumman would pick him up in a heartbeat.

Thread cleaned (none / 0) (#130)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:17:41 PM EST

and Emma is in time-out for blog-clogging and trashing the thread. JbinDC, you've made your point several times. And please stop accusing others of being confused because they disagree with you.

: I'm saying (4.00 / 3) (#131)
by jbindc on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:18:55 PM EST

MKS is confused because he has his facts wrong - not because he disagrees with me.