Sestak and the White House

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37618.html

Synopsis - Sestak has made allegations that when running against Specter, the White House offered him a job if he would drop out. Sestak didn't take the alleged offer, and went on to beat Specter. Sestak won't say who in the White House offered him a job, or what the job was. Issa is now threatening to make a formal complaint to the ethics commission. I think Issa knows Sestak is telling the truth, and wants the person or people in the White House identified, since that person or people would face felony charges for interfering in an election.

Meanwhile...

Gibbs got cornered on the Sestak issue, and so far has refused to answer questions about it. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 67892.html
Obvioulsy, given the number of times it came up and the amount of time Gibbs had to get clarification from the White House, and he still can't give a straight answer to a very simple question, there was some hanky-panky going on during the election, and Gibbs is now covering for someone in the White House. And if Gibbs is covering for that person, then that person is pretty far up the food chain. Most likely, Rahm Emmanuel, whos about the only person, besides Obama, that has the pull and authority of guaranteeing a high-level position to Sestak.

We'll see if this has some legs to it, but nothing makes a reporter salivate more than a hint of a top-level scandal in the WH, with the press secretary continuing to stonewall on the issue.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Gibbs evades again, blaming the Republicans for making unsubstantiated allegations (which seems odd to make that statement since Gibbs official poition is that he knows little to nothing about the incident, so how does he know the allegations are substantial or not?) And its not the Republcans making the allegations, its Sestak himself. Again. On Meet The Press even.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -job-offer

The White House has to come clean on this. The longer they evade and dodge, the more it stinks of a cover-up, and the more attention it will get. Election rigging is a serious crime, and even if it wasn't, the White House shouldn't be trying to game the system. One has to ask.. why does the White House feel the need to be evasive on the subject. Sestak knows its serious, so he's admitted it. There's no way he would want an offer of a bribe to come back and bite him. So he insulated himself by disclosing it, and letting the White House engage in the cover-up, which keeps his hands clean. If the Republicans regain control of the house in the elections, you can bet an independent investigator will be appointed, the truth will come out, and a couple of felony indictments will be handed out to member's of Obama's team, if not Obama himslef if he was part of it. If he was part of it, he should be impeached.

[Kulaf]

We certainly need more information other than just one side of the story and an incomplete side at that. There should be an investigation and see where it leads.

[Lurker]

what you are talking about is called a "fishing expedition". It's the......well we think you did something wrong......and if you'll just let us look at all of your files and question you under oath I am sure we will be able to prove it.

Now apply that to our legal system. Every prosecuter in the world would love to live under your system......where you can investigate someone and get warrents to search through their possessions on just a feeling.

Funny how Kulaf thought we shouldn't investigate corruption between the White House and the DOJ during the Bush Administration, writing it off as a fishing expedition and a political witch hunt, but he wants to investigate something as minor as this to see where it leads. What a hypocrite.

[Partha]

But Michael Moore and Al Gore are fat! Plus Clinton got a blowjob!

[Kulaf]

what you are talking about is called a "fishing expedition". It's the......well we think you did something wrong......and if you'll just let us look at all of your files and question you under oath I am sure we will be able to prove it.

Now apply that to our legal system. Every prosecuter in the world would love to live under your system......where you can investigate someone and get warrents to search through their possessions on just a feeling.

Funny how Kulaf thought we shouldn't investigate corruption between the White House and the DOJ during the Bush Administration, writing it off as a fishing expedition and a political witch hunt, but he wants to investigate something as minor as this to see where it leads. What a hypocrite.

Well for one I have no issue with Congress investigating statements by a sitting member of the House. Not sure why you assume I was speaking of investigating the WH that would be entirely premature. We have a sitting U.S. Representative making statements alleging that some unnamed person in the WH comitted a crime. Simply put Sestak under oath in front of a Congresional hearing and get the facts. If there is nothing to be seen then drop it and move on.

[Lurker]

And in the DOJ scandal we had false statements to Congress by a sitting Attorney General and allegations of crimes against people in the DoJ and the White House by USA's. You (and Embar) wrote the entire thing off as a fishing expedition and a witch hunt, and you admitted sticking your head in the sand from the start. You didn't want anyone put under oath and you didn't want to get the facts.

You either believe in Congressional oversight and their right to investigate or you don't. Other than the scope of the alleged wrongdoing the only thing that's changed is the party in power, yet you've completely contradicted yourself. Ditto for Embar.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nice diversion there Lurker...

And being the honest person that you are, I'm going to assume you feel the same way about this incident that you did with Bush and the DOJ. And therefore want an investigation into this to see who, if anyone in the White House, tried to rig an election. Especially since you're pointing your finger at Kulaf and me.

[Lurker]

Yes, there should be an investigation to see if a crime was committed and who was involved. Yes, the WH needs to be more forthcoming on what happened.

Do you care to comment on why you've done a complete 180 from the DOJ scandal to this situation? Given how pervasive and severe the DOJ scandal was and how trivial this one is, it seems very odd.

[Embar Angylwrath]

That discussion on the WH/DOJ (way back in 2007) was what... eleven pages long? And how many times did I post in that thread Lurker?

[Lurker]

I don't know. How many times?

Of course, lack of participation just further proves my point given the dismissive nature of the few times you did post.

Nice dodge.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ahhh... I see... because I didn't participate much in the discussion, you're seem to want to infer something that may or may not be true. Thast's a little dishonest, isn't it?

[Lurker]

Here's what I said...

Of course, lack of participation just further proves my point given the dismissive nature of the few times you did post.

Ignoring the last part of my sentence is more than a little dishonest, isn't it?

Your contributions in that thread were dismissive and you considered an investigation to be a witch hunt. You have completely reversed yourself in this case.

Why were you so dismissive of the much more serious scandal and yet so interested in this incident? A little self-reflection and an honest answer would be stunningly refreshing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think a disucssion about when a person should and shouldn't take the 5th, (which were the bulk of my posts in that thread) is being dismissive. And if you read through the posts, you'll see me say that I disagreed with the way the administration handled the fiasco.

[Lurker]

And if you read through the posts, you'll see me say that I disagreed with the way the administration handled the fiasco.

Nice try, but your only use of the word 'fiasco' was in reference to the investigation itself when you compared it to a witch trial.

In that same post you did say you "don't agree with how the President handled the terminations", which is extremely dismissive given what was known about the scandal at the time, and you launched an attack on the left and the liberal posters on the board.

Imagine your reaction if we had responded the same way now.

I'm guessing you aren't going to admit you had a 180 degree reversal for partisan reasons?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Anyone can re-read the thread if they want. Your characterization of my participation in it is simply not true. Now, back to the original topic. You can start another Rehash a 2007 Thread if you want, but my position and your position on something that happened years ago isn't relevant to this topic.

Its hard to take Obama serioulsy about claims of being different and wanting openess and transparency in government, when he won't apply that standard to the himself or the White House. If, as Gibbs said it was no big deal, why is Gibbs making it a big deal be refusing to give up the details? Any opinion on that?

[Lurker]

If, as Gibbs said it was no big deal, why is Gibbs making it a big deal be refusing to give up the details? Any opinion on that?

I have no idea. Gibbs said that lawyers have reviewed the discussions and nothing improper happened. I won't pretend to know his motivation for responding the way he is; either he's telling the truth or he's trying to stonewall. Issa said he'll launch an ethics probe if someone else doesn't, and if this is an actual issue and not just an election year stunt I expect him to. Holder said he's deferring to the Public Integrity Section of the DoJ and won't interfere. I'm all for more details coming out about this.

And sorry, but I'll continue to note that you and Kulaf reacted completely differently to much more serious allegations.

[Kulaf]

I'd be interested to know how you are quantifying that the other charges were "much more serious" when we have no clue who in the WH made the offer and whether it even occured. If President Obama made the offer directly do you still think the other charges were "much more serious"?

I'll just note that this is another example of you putting the proverbial cart before the horse to score imagined political points.

[Lurker]

I'd be interested to know how you are quantifying that the other charges were "much more serious" when we have no clue who in the WH made the offer and whether it even occured.

Responding to "whether it even occured". Given what Gibbs has said it's clear that a discussion occurred.

Even looking at the worst possible case where the President himself offers a job to Sestak if he drops out of the Democratic primary, I think the corruption between the Bush White House and the DoJ was more serious and dangerous. But regardless of which was worse, you didn't want an investigation then but want one in this case.

I'll just note that this is another example of you putting the proverbial cart before the horse to score imagined political points.

It's clear you didn't want an investigation of the DoJ scandal but want an investigation in this case because you are a partisan, so I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

[Kulaf]

Had nothing to do with whether or not I "wanted" an investigation of the WH. The main issues for me was there was no underlying crime to investigate and the President had asserted Executive Privlidge. To my knowledge unless there was an underlying crime to investigate, the USSC had never overridden the Exectives claim under seperation of powers.

Your citation of mine from the other issue was on page 4. By that point the President had already made an assertion of privlidge. The discussion on my end had revloved around Consitutional issues of seperation of powers. If/until President Obama makes the same assertion I will continue to view these two issues seperatly despite your attempts to conflate the two for imagined political points.