Michelle Malkin » Why did the White House contact Joe Sestak’s brother? Update: Bob the Fixer earns his stripes; Issa responds; Sestak statement added

Why did the White House contact Joe Sestak’s brother? Update: Bob the Fixer earns his stripes; Issa responds; Sestak statement added

By Michelle Malkin • May 28, 2010 08:52 AM

Scroll for updates…the Memorial Day document dump does not end this story…

Is Bob “The Silencer” Bauer hard at work fixing the Sestak scandal for Boss Obama?

Perhaps.

Roll Call reports that somebody at the White House dialed up Joe Sestak’s brother and campaign manager, Richard, yesterday in preparation for the “official statement” that the president promised would be released soon:

Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee in the Pennsylvania Senate race, disclosed Thursday that White House officials contacted his brother in preparation for a response to allegations that Sestak was offered a job in the Obama administration as an enticement not to challenge incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter.

Faced with mounting scrutiny from Capitol Hill and accusations that such an offer might violate the law, President Barack Obama promised Thursday to have “an official response shortly on the Sestak issue.”

…Sestak said his brother and an unnamed White House official or officials spoke about “what was going to occur.” Sestak declined to identify who made the call for the administration, adding that he has had no direct contact with the White House.

Sestak called Obama a “pretty legitimate person.” He added, “But we’ll find out shortly what they have to say.”

Sestak was tight-lipped about the situation, declining to comment on whether he would agree with the White House’s take on the situation. He pledged to say more — and even to return to Washington for a Capitol Hill news conference over the weekend or early next week — once the White House had made its announcement.

“When the president speaks — or whoever speaks from the White House — we obviously will have something to say,” he said.

Kurt Bardella, Spokesperson, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, responds: “If the White House is coordinating it’s response with the Sestak campaign, as Congressman Sestak has reported, it certainly explains why the President, when given the opportunity at a nationally broadcasted press conference, abdicated the opportunity to address the issue candidly and definitively. Instead, it appears as if the White House is taking time to circle the wagons and coordinating their message. This revelation that the White House initiated a dialogue with Sestak at the same time they are preparing their public response certainly leaves the impression that there is a coordinated effort going on. Of course, if everyone just did the right thing and told the truth, the need to speculate about motive and impartiality wouldn’t be necessary.”

WaPo also reporting on the White House contact with Sestak’s brother here.

I repeat: Look who’s behind the White House/Sestak wall.

And I ask again: What did Bob “The Silencer” Bauer know, when did he know it, and how long does the Most Transparent Administration Ever plan to play dodgeball with the public?

***

Update: Bob the Fixer…Can he fix it?…Bob the Fixer…YES HE CAN!

White House Counsel Robery Bauer on Friday rejected claims that Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a top administration job in return for dropping his Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter .

In a memo released by the White House, Bauer says his office has “concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in law,” and runs through the various potential positions that have been reported to have been offered to Sestak, who defeated Spcter for the Senate Democratic nomination earlier this month.
Click here to learn more!

Although Bauer does acknowledge that — at the request of Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel — former President Bill Cinton did approach Sestak about being appointed to “a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board,” the memo says no White House officials went to Sestak directly and any position would have been unpaid.

The law says directly or indirectly.

And this is not just about the law. It’s about the spirit of corruption that pervades Chicago on the Potomac.

Culture of corruption…confirmed.

***

So, who was the “buffer” for the Romanoff job-trade offer — noted on this blog in February and in my column in March?

White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, we’re looking at you.

You know who’s laughing right now? Rod Blago.

***
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa responds:

Issa Statement Regarding White House-Sestak Memorandum

“We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. It’s a status quo that extends beyond any particular party, and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face…we’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election.” – Candidate Obama, Night of the South Carolina Democratic Primary

WASHINGTON. D.C. – House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) released the following statement regarding the memorandum released today by White House Counsel Robert Bauer addressing allegations made by Pennsylvania Senate Democratic nominee and three-star Navy Admiral Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) that someone inside the Obama White House offered him a job in exchange for his withdrawal from the PA Senate Primary race:

“After more than ten weeks of outstanding questions, the White House has offered a version of events that has important differences from what Congressman Sestak has been saying for months – that he was offered a ‘job’ by ‘someone in the White House’ in exchange for leaving the Pennsylvania Senate race.

“I’m very concerned that in the rush to put together this report, the White House has done everything but explain its own actions and has instead worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved. The White House has admitted today to coordinating an arrangement that would represent an illegal quid-pro-quo as federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any position or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election.

“President Clinton and Congressman Sestak now need to answer questions about what the White House has released today – that at the behest of the White House Chief of staff, they dispatched a former President to get Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate Primary. Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, 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.”

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

18 U.S.C. § 211 – Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

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.

18 U.S.C. § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

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.

***

Bob the Fixer is quite the fixer, isn’t he?

Here is Sestak’s statement, all nice and tidy and lawyered thoroughly to wrap things up…

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.

There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Corruption,Politics

Printer Friendly

comments (244)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

« Older Comments

#201

On May 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm, chapoutier said:

State you argument, then.

Asked and answered, counselor.

My point was not that Reagan did it before (even though he did). My point was:

1.to refute the ridiculous claim that the media hasn’t been over this story and that it would have been way worse if it had happened to a Republican. Because it did, and it wasn’t; and
2. to see all the straining everyone here will go through to try to differentiate the situation.
#202

On May 28th, 2010 at 8:42 pm, Ragspierre said:

Were you up to your knees in rice patties, with guns that didn’t work, looking for Charlie?

But keep on playing that old “Blame the MSM” LP. Maybe if you keep it properly maintained and return it to its original jacket after you are done playing it, it will last you another 30 years.

I sense a white flag being hoisted…

BTW, my guns always work, and your allusion applies more aptly to LBJ. A common flaw in the narrative of people who only read history…from a Zinn text especially.
#203

On May 28th, 2010 at 8:49 pm, Ragspierre said:

My point was not that Reagan did it before (even though he did). My point was:

1.to refute the ridiculous claim that the media hasn’t been over this story and that it would have been way worse if it had happened to a Republican. Because it did, and it wasn’t; and
2. to see all the straining everyone here will go through to try to differentiate the situation.

The foundational predicate is EXACTLY as you said it was NOT…

my client cannot be prosecuted, because others who have committed his crime were not.

It is fallacious. Reagan did not do what Obama has done, on the evidence you hitched your wagon to.

Had he done, the people of the LEFT would have made it an issue. They did not, because they could not.

You can, if you wish, persist in spinning this.

It is costing you credibility.
#204

On May 28th, 2010 at 8:56 pm, chapoutier said:

my client cannot be prosecuted, because others who have committed his crime were not.

Don’t be daft. I did not say that. The only foundational predicate is that they both have done the same thing. I didn’t say a damn word about whether or not it was prosecutable. Nor does anything I said rely on such a statement, one way or the other.

It is fallacious. Reagan did not do what Obama has done, on the evidence you hitched your wagon to.

Yeah…except that he did. You don’t want to see it (or admit that you see it) and that is fine. But it doesn’t change the fact that his boy went out there and promised the Senator a job if he wasn’t in the CA primary.

Had he done, the people of the LEFT would have made it an issue. They did not, because they could not.

Ohhh….I SEE. Your brilliant legal deduction is based on a boogeyman theory! Libs are super bad and their inaction here, or at least what we can glean of their inaction, PROVES that nothing untoward happened. That is spectacular.

It is costing you credibility.

The second I start worrying about my perceived credibility in the eyes of the posters here is the day I will gouge my own out. Think of me as you will, respond to me as you want…I am indifferent.
#205

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:09 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On May 28th, 2010 at 8:08 pm, chapoutier said:
But I get it. Reagan was rainbows and puppies and pure driven snow.

As opposed to rainbows and sea kittens and pure yellow snow we’re getting now.
#206

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:10 pm, dadinseattle said:

This will still be waiting for him on Tuesday, and far beyond…they actually brought even greater suspicion on themselves today.
Every Congress member should be asked their opinions on this ad naseum until they admit an investigation is more than appropriate in this case, and that Romanoff case too.
Something Stinks at the White House
#207

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:12 pm, Ragspierre said:

The only foundational predicate is that they both have done the same thing.

Which, as demonstrated here, is false. A lie (a knowing untruth) when you keep reciting it.

Your brilliant legal deduction is based on a boogeyman theory! Libs are super bad and their inaction here, or at least what we can glean of their inaction, PROVES that nothing untoward happened. That is spectacular.

No, indeed. No boogymen, no super villians. People who I have watched and listened to since you were in…well, we’ve been over that. This is not even debatable. There is HISTORY here, and some of us know it very well. You can, too, because it objectively EXISTS.

This is in opposition to your blather. You found a story. In the press of the day. It is an orphan. It DIRECTLY refutes what you say it establishes. So does the paucity of stories subsequent.

From that, you extrapolate many things that are simply untrue, and for which you have no support.

Rollins was open about what he said. That was not because he was cavalier about breaking a law; it was because he was NOT breaking a law. Or doing anything immoral, unethical, or fattening.

The Obami have been covert, obfuscative, and disingenuous. They have stonewalled this because they knew they had some legal exposure; they KNEW they had broken the law.

Even you can tell the difference in demeanor. If you could admit it.

We know you to be indifferent. We know you to be less than honest. We know you can live with that.

We choose not to.
#208

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:22 pm, John Deaux said:

I guess that following some of the logic I read here, I should call Sestak and offer him a job on Obama’s behalf so we could prosecute Obama for making the indirect offer.

Now you tell me. If it was that easy, I would have done it on Jan 22, 2009.
#209

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:34 pm, chapoutier said:

Which, as demonstrated here, is false. A lie (a knowing untruth) when you keep reciting it.

Only demonstrated in the deluded and/or disingenuous minds of Reagan apologists. An official in Reagan’s admin offered Hayabuka a job if he wasn’t in the California primary. Whether he knew that was illegal or not, that was the intent. Of course, maybe in your warped world view, promise of job security is not consideration. I don’t know why there wasn’t more follow up. But that only proves there wasn’t more follow up.

Even you can tell the difference in demeanor. If you could admit it.

Again, I’d ask you to point to the part of the statute where demeanor matters. In fact, I have asked people to point to parts of the statute a lot. Not so surprisingly, not one person has taken me up on the offer.
#210

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm, chapoutier said:

Night all. Been fun, but the Mets are on and have now pitched 32 straight shut out innings. That is certainly more compelling than anything I am finding here.
#211

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:44 pm, Ragspierre said:

An official in Reagan’s admin offered Hayabuka a job if he wasn’t in the California primary.

No. He. Did. Not.

What he said…IN THE PRESS…was that Hayakawa would be considered for (or even offered) a position if he were available to the executive branch. That is done every season in Washington. (See our current Sec. Of Transportation).

Since I know that even you can see that as essentially different than covertly saying, “If you quit the primary, then we will give you a job”, I know you are simply lying by insisting these incidents are equivalent.
#212

On May 28th, 2010 at 9:49 pm, Ragspierre said:

Again, I’d ask you to point to the part of the statute where demeanor matters. In fact, I have asked people to point to parts of the statute a lot. Not so surprisingly, not one person has taken me up on the offer.

Because it is both disingenuous and stupid.

It isn’t in the statute. I can’t think of a criminal statute that mentions “demeanor”.

It is in the ambit of human behavior. You know, that place where people live. Where crimes are committed…REALLY. Where juries make their determinations of guilt or innocence. Where voters cast their verdict in the court of public opinion.

I can tell you are seldom…if ever…in a courtroom. Your gnat-straining would be very quickly disposed of by a jury…and most judges.
#213

On May 28th, 2010 at 11:20 pm, dadinseattle said:

The fact is that Sestak is still on the bus- not under it- where the culprits associated with the White House would unceremoniously toss him to end the problem, if they could…
They know what they did, they know it was illegal, and now they are trying to cover it up, and claim it was nothing really, …trust them.
#214

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:25 am, William said:

Obama, and the Democrats, and the Leftists CAN break the law, make up their own rules, insult people, lie, cheat, murder, harass, cajole, coerce, etc., and get away with it.

There is DEFINITELY a different standard for Conservatives in comparison with Leftists-Liberals-Progressives-Democrats.

There are no morals or limits or values on the left. There is only utilitarianism. Anything goes. It’s all good.

Along with that, the same violators of the rules, the leftists-Democrats-progesives are raised up and praised as wonderful, brilliant, moral persons, which they are not.

That is just the way they roll, and just the way the REAL world is in the year 2010.
#215

On May 29th, 2010 at 8:58 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

I just love the way these ding-bat leftist make up-bring up-30 year old rumors and stories to justify all sorts of shenanigans today. But then most liars, thieves, burglars, rapist and such will use the excuse “everybody does”. The Party and press that pushed for the Violence Against Women Act justified the assaults against Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, the incident with Paula Jones was justified for she was but trailer trash. Clever leftist may say otherwise but a clever lie is still a lie.

Right at the moment it seems Joe Sestak and the White House have each other by the short hairs-the first one to let go causes both to fall. Enjoy the dance-keep pushing.

===
Let your sidearm be like Master Card:
Don’t Leave home without it.
#216

On May 29th, 2010 at 9:41 am, Jimmie said:

Did anyone really think that they would just confess?…..The kind of cool thing that they brought in a convicted perjurer for their alibi…..life in the higher circles…..SOP
#217

On May 29th, 2010 at 11:03 am, txvet2 said:

On May 28th, 2010 at 4:15 pm, chapoutier said:

Just ignore that part about not being contacted by the White House. That’s OK.

And Sestak was contacted by Bill Clinton. But of course, he was doing it on behalf of someone else.

As was Rollins. But just ignore that part.

What doesn’t seem to penetrate through that thick mass of bone between your ears is that Hayakawa wasn’t contacted by anybody at all, much less at Reagan’s behest. Even for you this is ridiculous. Your whole conspiracy seems to be one off-the-cuff comment by one individual about what might happen if something else happens – speculation, as it were. And Hayakawa confirms that he wasn’t contacted. Your puerile little house of cards doesn’t even have any cards.
#218

On May 29th, 2010 at 11:20 am, swede said:

ArizonaNeanderthal said:
Right at the moment it seems Joe Sestak and the White House have each other by the short hairs-the first one to let go causes both to fall. Enjoy the dance-keep pushing.

I’d say Sestak was holding all the cards ’til now, then folded.

Trump Card – for the last 3 months.
Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state’s Democratic primary.
White House denies – then stonewalls.

Fold – Yesterday
[Clinton] 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.

A federal job is a job, and no one would refer to uncompensated service on a board as a job. He is now clearly contradicting himself.

Can someone tell me what a Presidential Board is? How about an example? Why would anyone want to be on a board without compensation while still acting as a Congressman?

This is a tortured spin cooked up by the White House in a lame attempt to deflect the reality that Rahmbo, and possibly Dear Leader himself have committed felonies.

Memo to Barry: That dog won’t hunt.

So Sestak agrees to change his story that matches the spin – but not his own statements. Only reasonable explanation I can think of.
#219

On May 29th, 2010 at 11:42 am, txvet2 said:

Sestak folded because he wants to have a future in politics and the other side has all of the power.
#220

On May 29th, 2010 at 1:01 pm, swede said:

txvet2 said:
Sestak folded because he wants to have a future in politics and the other side has all of the power.

But for how long? This has all the signs of a one term administration, and Sestak folding could well cost him the Senate election. I could be wrong, but looks pretty bone headed to me.
#221

On May 29th, 2010 at 1:06 pm, txvet2 said:

Sestak is just trying to save his racehorse at this moment. If he doesn’t play up to the thugs, his career will be over whether he wins or not. If he plays ball and wins, it doesn’t matter if they lose the presidential race. If he loses, at least he isn’t wearing cement shoes.
#222

On May 29th, 2010 at 1:18 pm, txvet2 said:

One final shot. From the original Sestak interview:

Larry Kane, known as the “dean of Philadelphia television news anchors,” has been covering Pennsylvania politics for more than 40 years. During a February 18th interview he asked Congressman Joe Sestak to clarify a rumor he had been hearing for months.

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate primary against Arlen Specter.

“Yes,” Sestak answered.

“Was it Navy Secretary?”

“No comment,” said Sestak.

According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked:

“So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

“Yes.”

At the end of the taping, Sestak looked surprised and said, “You are the first person who ever asked me that question.” His response to Kane appeared spontaneous and unscripted.

That’s far, far different from what happened with Hayakawa, who was never contacted in any way (except by a reporter asking for comment).
#223

On May 29th, 2010 at 1:52 pm, swede said:

If he plays ball and wins, it doesn’t matter if they lose the presidential race. If he loses, at least he isn’t wearing cement shoes.

Good point. Hayakawa has no similarity to this whatsoever. chap was just using it to draw the discussion off the real topic.
#224

On May 29th, 2010 at 2:59 pm, Ragspierre said:

Hayakawa has no similarity to this whatsoever. chap was just using it to draw the discussion off the real topic.

Per usual.
#225

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:17 pm, Jewels said:

I’m reminded by something the great Samual Clemens once said about telling the truth. If you do it, you don’t have to worry about remembering your lies.
#226

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:22 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“I have given you lands to hunt in,
I have given you streams to fish in,
I have given you bear and bison,
I have given you roe and reindeer,
I have given you brant and beaver,
Filled the marshes full of wild-fowl,
Filled the rivers full of fishes:
Why then are you not contented?
Why then will you hunt each other?

“I am weary of your quarrels,
Weary of your wars and bloodshed,
Weary of your prayers for vengeance,
Of your wranglings and dissensions;
All your strength is in your union,
All your danger is in discord;
Therefore be at peace henceforward,
And as brothers live together.

“I will send a Prophet to you,
A Deliverer of the nations,
Who shall guide you and shall teach you,
Who shall toil and suffer with you.
If you listen to his counsels,
You will multiply and prosper;
If his warnings pass unheeded,
You will fade away and perish!
#227

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:25 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

Sorry, didn’t have my hearing aid in. Hayakawa, not Hiawatha….
#228

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:49 pm, By Choice said:

According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked:

“So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

“Yes.”

At the end of the taping, Sestak looked surprised and said, “You are the first person who ever asked me that question.” His response to Kane appeared spontaneous and unscripted.

Last I heard Clinton wasn’t in the White House any more — did I miss something???
#229

On May 29th, 2010 at 4:05 pm, Ragspierre said:

On May 29th, 2010 at 3:49 pm, By Choice said:

Hater/racist.
#230

On May 29th, 2010 at 4:11 pm, swede said:

OT – In other news…

FORMER REAGAN SPEECH WRITER WHO BOUGHT INTO HOPE&CHANGE NOW DEEPLY PUZZLED AT MESIANIC INCOMPETENCE

He Was Supposed to Be Competent

Say, wasn’t Emelia Earhart’s navigator also called Noonan? Why yes, he was. The man had charisma, swagger and glistening pecs. What could go wrong Peggy?
#231

On May 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm, Bogtrotter said:

While I have been somewhat surprised, when perusing the major leftist websites, at the large number of disillusioned Obama fans who are voicing their disgust with this shady deal, there are still a few laughs to be found in the comments sections. You can still read the standard “But republicans did the same thing” and “This is nothing as long as Bush and Chaney have still not been tried as war criminals” responses. LOL. They are so predictable.
#232

On May 29th, 2010 at 6:39 pm, swede said:

Bogtrotter said:
You can still read the standard “But republicans did the same thing” and “This is nothing as long as Bush and Chaney have still not been tried as war criminals” responses.

Right. Felonious election tampering is okay because somebody else did something else that they think is worse. Got it. By that thinking Bush and Cheney are OK, because Hitler killed 6 million Jews.

Here you go: I’ll bet a buck this will be the standard MSM line. Nothing unethical happened – but it was stupid.

NYT – Unintelligent Design

There doesn’t seem to be anything terribly unethical about the White House offer of an unpaid advisory position to Joe Sestak if he would bow out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, in which he later defeated Senator Arlen Specter. There does, however, seem to be something strikingly unintelligent about it….

Meddling in Congressional races is an expected and even an important part of any White House political operation, even those that claim to be different from their predecessors. If Mr. Obama had meddled a little earlier and more intensively in the United States Senate race in Massachusetts earlier this year, he might have been able to prevent the election of a Republican, Scott Brown, to the seat long held by Edward Kennedy.

I had to read it twice. Yup, he actually says felony election tampering is okie dokie – everybody does it – Barry’s error is not doing enough of it and he needs to be more intelligent about it.

I looked for the byline to see which of their stellar geniuses came up with this steaming pile. Whoever wrote it wouldn’t put their name it. Huh. Strange….
#233

On May 29th, 2010 at 6:47 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“Meddling in Congressional races is an expected and even an important part of any White House political operation”

And hence why they made it illegal….
#234

On May 29th, 2010 at 6:50 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“strikingly unintelligent about it…”

And there it is, the left’s mindset. When it is one of their own the issue is never that you break the law. It is always were you stupid enough to get caught or smart enough to get away with it.
#235

On May 29th, 2010 at 10:28 pm, Bruce said:

In the same vein as TXVET’s post above, there is this – from another post today:

During his Meet the Press appearance, Sestak was asked by moderator David Gregory in this fashion:

MR. GREGORY: Yes or no, straightforward question. Were you, were you offered a job, and what was the job?

REP. SESTAK: I was offered a job, and I answered that.

MR. GREGORY: You said no, you wouldn’t take the job. Was it the secretary of the Navy?

REP. SESTAK: Right. And I also said, “Look, I’m getting into this…

The “Right” answer would be the first time that Sestak has personally confirmed what has been long suspected — the bribe Issa mentions was indeed the job of Secretary of the Navy.
#236

On May 30th, 2010 at 7:46 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

In other Culture of Corruption news…
If you haven’t seen this already over at Hot Air, it is a must-read:

Obama, ACORN and Stealth Socialism
posted at 5:00 pm on May 29, 2010 by Anita MonCrief

As an ex-ACORN insider and ex-radical who used Democrat donor lists to raise money for ACORN alter-ego Project Vote and designed the ACORN 2005, 2006 and 2007 Political Operations Year End PowerPoint presentations, I know that President Obama (for whom I now regretfully admit I proudly voted) was an ACORN guy for many years and realize that he became the instrument for the implementation of its stealth socialism agenda.
#237

On May 31st, 2010 at 4:37 am, txvet2 said:

On May 29th, 2010 at 1:52 pm, swede said:

If he plays ball and wins, it doesn’t matter if they lose the presidential race. If he loses, at least he isn’t wearing cement shoes.

Good point. Hayakawa has no similarity to this whatsoever. chap was just using it to draw the discussion off the real topic.

Of course. It’s his only defense of the indefensible – but it’s still sometimes worthwhile to rebut his flights of fancy lest they take hold in feeble minds.
#238

On June 1st, 2010 at 4:23 pm, dcbprime said:

It’s a tu quoque argument, and if those on the left had an ounce of logic, they would never use that argument.

Yet, they cannot stop themselves. The chance to slap their opponents as hypocrites is too juicy to them.

Thus, as we have seen here, whether there was, in fact, any wrong-doing on the part of Rollins, is irrelevant to the situation with Sestak.

Yet, even pointing-out the tu quoque argument– as was done by several posters, using several methods– doesn’t even slow the Left down.

One could write a book on the illogical arguments by liberals, but it would overlap several books already in existence.

Another thing they will routinely do is twist things ever so slightly to what they think is their advantage:

For instance:

I said:
Should you really continue to ignore the fact that Hayakawa DID step away from that race, and was not offered any sort of job or position?

On May 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm, chapoutier said:
Could you point to me the part of the statute that says the illegality is contingent upon acceptance of the position?

See how subtly he changed it from “was not offered” to a matter of acceptance?

Just some things to watch for when talking to a liberal.
#239

On June 2nd, 2010 at 8:17 am, chapoutier said:

See how subtly he changed it from “was not offered” to a matter of acceptance?

Except that he was. Reagan’s guy promised him a position if he left the race. Whether or not it was face to face is absolutely irrelevant per the statute. Why do you continue to ignore that?

My point is that just because there was no follow through (which…of course there wasn’t after Hayawaka rejected the original outreach –HE probably knew his US Code better than Reagan, or you apparently, did) does not mean the initial offer was not made. And the fact that he didn’t actually receive a job is irrelevant as well.

I swear, this is like watching Cirque du Soliel. Except that they are actually good at evasion and obfuscation.
#240

On June 2nd, 2010 at 11:22 am, dcbprime said:

Yet it remains a tu quoque, regardless any wrongdoing, perceived or otherwise, by Rollins.

How is it that you cannot grasp that?

Obviously you dislike dead horses, so you continue to beat them.
#241

On June 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm, chapoutier said:

How is it that you cannot grasp that?

How retarded must you be to not get, despite the fact that I have said it only about a million times that my point is not to excuse the alleged incident with Sestak?

Seriously. Either you don’t know what tu quoque means, and are simply throwing that out to sound smarter than you are or you have major reading comprehension problems. Either way, you are an idiot. And, let me just cut you off before you waste my time butchering the rules of logic by calling this post an “ad hominem”. I am not calling you an idiot to prove my point. I am doing so merely because you can’t seem to grasp it.
#242

On June 2nd, 2010 at 1:51 pm, dcbprime said:

my point is not to excuse the alleged incident with Sestak

Then what, pray, is your point in this dead horse?

If your argument is not to apply the Hayakawa article to the Sestak incident, then why go through all of this?
#243

On June 2nd, 2010 at 2:02 pm, chapoutier said:

If your argument is not to apply the Hayakawa article to the Sestak incident, then why go through all of this?

I didn’t say I would not “apply” the one incident to the other. I said I wasn’t trying to “excuse” one incident with the other.

And, since you can’t seem to find it yourself…

My point was not that Reagan did it before (even though he did). My point was:

1.to refute the ridiculous claim that the media hasn’t been over this story and that it would have been way worse if it had happened to a Republican. Because it did, and it wasn’t; and
2. to see all the straining everyone here will go through to try to differentiate the situation. So far we have had:
#244

On June 2nd, 2010 at 2:23 pm, dcbprime said:

I didn’t say I would not “apply” the one incident to the other. I said I wasn’t trying to “excuse” one incident with the other.

I just got back from re-reading the 250+ comments, and I must admit that you have not stated that you were trying to excuse the Sestak/Clinton/Rahm/Obama incident. I stand corrected.