« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

White House Memo Makes Offer-gate into a Scandal

What did the president know, and when did he know it?

“There is a cancer on the presidency. It has been growing daily for the past three months. It’s compounding, it grows geometrically now because it compounds itself. And there is no assurance that it won’t bust.”

Former White House Counsel John Dean spoke those words to President Richard Nixon almost 40 years ago as the Nixon White House was desperately trying to cover its role in the Watergate scandal—ultimately unsuccessfully. The cancer did bust, the administration was laid low, and succeeding generations of Americans learned that the cover up is often worse than the crime.

Now, the Obama administration finds itself in the middle of its first genuine Washington scandal. And the White House’s ham-fisted effort to sweep the budding scandal under the rug—failing to heed the lesson of Watergate—is largely to blame.

White House Counsel Robert Bauer’s memo detailing the White House’s version of events in the case of Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nominee Joe Sestak raises far more questions than it answers. Released last Friday, at the beginning of both a three-day holiday weekend and a weeklong Congressional recess, the memo was intended to be the Obama administration’s last word on the matter. But the memo’s self-serving explanation and lack of detail have turned a minor annoyance for the administration into a full fledged Washington scandal, virtually guaranteeing that there will be much more written and said about Sestak, the administration’s interference in the Pennsylvania Senate primary, and what looks to be a politically motivated cover up.

In February, Rep. Joe Sestak was asked a seemingly innocuous question by local Philadelphia television host Larry Kane: “Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Sestak’s answer, and the unflinching manner in which he delivered it, are now infamous. “Yes,” he said, swift and surely. Kane pressed. “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?” “Yes,” the answer came again. What Sestak was describing is a felony—18 USC 600 makes it a crime for anyone to offer a federal job, position, or appointment in exchange for a political act.

Bauer’s memo admits that a conversation took place between Sestak and former president Bill Clinton at the behest of the administration; and admits that Clinton and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had discussed the possibility of finding a place for Sestak on a presidential advisory board in return for his agreement not to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. But the memo excuses the offer as legal because the advisory role the administration envisioned for the congressman would have been uncompensated. The law makes no such distinction, and the memo’s reliance on this erroneous interpretation only heightens the contradictions between what Sestak has been saying for months, and what the Obama administration has refused to discuss until now.

Since the original interview, Sestak has been asked on numerous occasions about his claim that the White House essentially tried to buy him out of the primary. He has never challenged the characterization that he was offered a job to bow out. Beyond that, Sestak has refused to reveal any details about what he was offered or with whom he spoke. Sestak never endeavored to correct the record and explain that he was offered a relatively low-ranking spot on a voluntary advisory board. He was apparently comfortable with the perception that the administration was so afraid of either losing him as a congressman, or losing Specter as the nominee, that it would offer Sestak a high-level administration position. On Friday, Sestak dutifully recounted the conversation described in the White House memo, saying that he spoke with President Clinton just once last July about keeping out of the primary, and only for 30-60 seconds.

The Watergate scandal was famously framed by a question from Republican Senator Howard Baker: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” The White House memo in Offer-gate makes that question more relevant today, not less. Did President Obama know of Emanuel’s outreach to Clinton? Did he approve it? Did Obama authorize a role for Sestak in the administration if he agreed to stay out of the primary? So far the White House isn’t saying. And what of the reports that Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff was similarly offered an administration post in return for declining to challenge incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet in the primary? The White House is attempting to spin its way out of the Romanoff allegations now.

Despite the White House effort to close the book on the Sestak affair, the Obama administration has given the next Woodward and Bernstein plenty of answers to chase. Perhaps somewhere in the administration, there is a Deep Throat with a story to tell. Like Watergate, Offer-gate will likely compound itself now growing bigger with each passing day that the administration refuses to provide answers to the questions its explanation has raised. And for the administration, there can be no assurance that it will not bust.

Originally published at The Daily Caller.

COMMENTS

  • acat

    … and we’re missing the real play somewhere else.

    Mew

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    I do believe this is common in Washington.

    What is not this common is this level of ineptitude. On top of the Gulf oil leak, this shows a White House that is so lost, it doesn’t know which way is up.

    They have themselves created this crisis. They will now try to blame Republicans for this…but really should look in the mirror first.

    http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=11123

  • ctpsb

    ……but the government media will never let a Democrat president fall by scandal. No matter how bad they’ll just keep the volume turned down until it passes over. Look at Clinton.

    • eastbaylarry
  • GT350

    This is a mini-scandal by Washington standards. I’m a big boy, and understand that this stuff goes on all the time, though perhaps more subtly. However, jobs-for-favors is clearly against the law.

    1) It plays to the public’s perception of Chicago patronage politics. Upcoming Blago trial will reinforce that perception.

    2) Man-bites-Dog story. What! Squeaky clean Obama is really a dirty Chicago pol… but we were told otherwise! I thought he was born of the Virgin Mary, in a field, and never corrupted. Dissonance catches people’s attention more than same ol’ same ol’.

    3) Sestak & Romanoff have no reason to back down. They are campaiging as outsiders, and there’s no better way to reinforce that status than to be cast as “the uncorruptible outsider who refused to be bribed by the powers that be.”

    4) I just bought a big bag of popcorn, and I want to enjoy it at length. Pass the salt please.

    • cwilson

      .

      • acat

        not yet. Hizzonner Mayor Daley isn’t (quite) dim enough to go after what we eat. Not yet, at least.

        Mew

        • redneck_hippie

          Banned 2 years, unbanned for 2 years. Time for the city council to swing into action!

          • acat

            You could always get foie gras – just had to find a good butcher in the suburbs.

            Nanny Bloomberg seems to think New York City is the whole United States.

            (having been there, don’t get it…)

            Mew

          • redneck_hippie

            Chicago taxes everything they want to disappear. Remember the bottled water tax?

          • acat

            So, what went wrong? The buyers can’t all be suburbanites, can they? (grin)

            There are people who will pay the tax for the convenience – and this is okay. There’s no way around Nanny Bloomberg’s salt regulation, though – even if I wanted to pay for some authentic Westphalia bacon, I couldn’t buy it in NYC. Just stupid.

            Mew

  • smitch61

    This is the closest I have seen in comparison to that administration. What is so amazing is how they even considered getting away with something like this when the American people are in such struggle. Here in Michigan the situation with jobs is so bad, and to have these people blatantly play politics at the mercy of all of us is just beyond me.

    • indyjohn

      because they love to pretend that they are the guys in the white hats. Of course, they believe that such laws will obstruct the nefarious activities of the evil Republicans.
      These laws tend to be reactionary, self-serving, and calculated to achieve a short-term political gain. The Dems, in their delusional arrogance, never consider the possibility that their own people (the good guys) will run afoul of laws designed to catch their opponents.
      What I love most about this is that numerous conservative commentators warned, during the 2008 presidential campaign, that Obama would bring ‘The Chicago Way’ to Washington D. C. These warnings were ridiculed as partisan hyperbole. Hannity and Beck have now been vindicated.

      • lineholder

        I take it that you mean that they see themselves as the knights in shining armor who are “saving” the American people from the corrupt capitalists in the private sector of our economy? Yet the whole time they are really the wolves in sheep’s clothing making use of every form of corruption they can find?

        Yeah, I agree with that.

  • Duke

    I strongly suspect that, come November, the House will switch parties. Who wants to bet that at this time next year we see a House Select Committee on Electoral Abuse set up to determine “what the President knew, and when did he know it.” By that time there should be some carryover from the November election to add to the jobs-for-primary abuses.

  • LoriGirl

    I just pray that what happened to Clinton after his impeachment doesn’t happen to Obama. Clinton got so much sympathy from his supporters, they re-elected him.. Three and a half words did the trick: “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.” Now, the Left throws around one word, and they have been whipping it into action since pre-election: “Racist.”
    -Lori
    whttp://Consrvativemom.blogspot.com

  • jamo

    That is why it was made illegal.

    Can you imagine, if elections could be controlled by those in power by simply buying off their opponents in this way? It should be illegal. It is dasterdly.

  • The_Rebel

    White House press briefings, this will never have legs. When it gets to the point that 50% or more of the questions refer to this “scandal”, then we might have something. Don’t hold your breath, though, with this press corps.

    • 2big2fail

      It’s the times we live in. Two wars, upcoming mid-terms, oil spill, unemployment, Immigration, deficits, healthcare, economy, etc..

      The media and the people have more pressing things to think about than a job offer that most believe is business as usual in Washington anyway.

      This “scandal” is small potatoes compared to the everyday concerns of the average citizen.

      No legs in my opinion.

    • acat

      Let me provide a clue here.

      The White House Press Corps are the Investigative equivalent of a local theater club. There’s some raw talent, but for the most part it’s a bunch of folks who couldn’t or didn’t want to cut it at the city desk and got shunted to a useless branch.

      The real investigative reporting used to be the city desk because what sells papers – and this is still true, NYT are you listening? – is news that affects the neighborhoods or towns people live in. Today, the investigative reporter is more likely to be at best a stringer and probably a blogger.

      The number of questions from the press corps don’t matter – their whole original purpose was to make sure none of the nation’s newspapers missed a White House announcement – and somehow that don’t-piss-on-the-rug attitude has stuck long after the papers receive all the notifications by other means.

      Mew

  • wdevinney

    I don’t know if Rahm did this on purpose or was lucky, but it was a brilliant move to have Clinton make the offer. First, if the story ever became public, Bill Clinton would not hesitate to lie about what actually happened at the meeting to make it sound as innocuous as possible. Second, if it ever came to down to prosecuting anyone, the White House could spin it as Republicans continuing their persecution of Bill Clinton.

    • lineholder

      Clinton wanted to get certain pieces of this agenda passed when he was in there…it didn’t happen…Obama is getting some of that agenda through…

      For the sake of “greater good”, would Clinton lie and say he made the offer to prevent the full scope of unethical and unlawful implications from being unloaded on Obama at this point?

      • gekster
        • lineholder

          yes, Clinton made the offer or yes, Clinton lied?

          • gekster

            Isn’t he?

          • lineholder
          • eastbaylarry

            If this went down as the WH is presenting it, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill agreed to it so he could spin the situation against Obama.
            If Bill agreed to ‘tell the story’ after the fact and was NOT actually involved up front, you can bet Obama is in for some embarassing times ahead as Bill calls in his 30 pieces of silver.

  • crosley

    When Republicans take back the House, it’s going to be fun watching heads roll. This is a much bigger deal than the Valerie Plame nonsense, which was arguably the biggest “scandal” in the Bush administration.

    The only thing that’s keeping Obama’s rating from being in the 30′s is the American people still think he’s a decent guy. If he appears corrupt, in addition to being a radical, the bottom will fall out on his Presidency.

    You now have a pattern of how the White House works. In addition, this really taints two crucial Senate races, Colorado and Pennsylvania. I can easily see this scandal, particularly in Colorado, being the difference between winning and losing.

  • bs61

    I would think that it would be the whole Chicago Climate Exchange story, with sprinklings of Obama, Goldman Sachs, Joyce Foundation, SEIU and Gore!

    http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA

    But this administration is so corrupt – where to start?!

  • snowshooze

    Is what it boils down to, and this is the greatest threat that exists to our representation, or rights and our freedom.
    Free and fair elections are the holy grail to us.
    We cannot afford to tolerate this.
    This is not a small crime, it is the ultimate crime. Circumventing the will of the people by way of electioneering is as bad as it gets.
    When we lose our choice of representation, we will be ruled rather than represented.
    We HAVE to pursue this. We can’t let this one go.

    • mkozikowski

      our representation in government.
      Who listens to the PEOPLE any more. We are just an annoyance to the “Select Few” who govern us.

      This act of electioneering is just the icing on the cake.

      A ‘fecal’ cake for us to enjoy

    • redneck_hippie

      Illegal means illegal. Both in bribery and in immigration.

      If we don’t have a system of laws, it is all over.

      • lineholder
        • redneck_hippie

          rhetoric, too. He’s a cheap street hustler at his core. But also his thuggish mein may partially be a ploy to up-end civil discourse at a time when he is furthering and abetting lawlessness. Remember, Stalinism also had a deep vein of atheism, crudity, and of course the thuggery and lawlessness. Stalin though, of course, had that whole murderous brutality thing going for him.

          • lineholder

            I don’t think it would be a wise choice to underestimate the man. He’s been shrewd enough to present himself as being above the laws of this nation and he’s been able to get away with it in a manner that very few people would have been able to do.

            Then again, for people who operate on a basis of solid moral values, seeking to put ourselves as being above the law isn’t a goal we would set for ourselves. Respecting and abiding by the laws would be.

          • redneck_hippie

            he still gets caught in attempting to bribe senatorial candidates. Time will tell whether he gets away with his lawlessness. “His” re-election is over 2 years away. I’m counting on the America that we have been, coming together like we did after 9/11 and kicking his sorry ash to the gutter where he belongs.

          • lineholder

            I could hope for something to be revealed that lets the people of this country see the hard, cold truth about the man’s character and knocks him slap out of consideration for 2012, but I’d rather by far to see someone on the conservative side of spectrum step up and earn the respect of the people of this country during the next two years so that conservatives win the election legitimately, with no doubts in play.

          • redneck_hippie

            love affair with Obama. Practical considerations on the order of “am I better off or worse off since 2008″ will be in the forefront, but the character issues will chip chip chip away at the delusions of his lovestruck groupies.

  • Joe_Cor

    He voted three times to allow premature infants to die unattended in hospitals.

    He chose a hateful, anti-American lunatic for his “spiritual advisor” and remained in the man’s congregation for 20 years.

    He socialized with a 1960s terrorist.

    He appointed a communist, 9-11 truther to his administration.

    None of that stuck, but this will?

    I’m skeptical.

    • MF

      He voted three times to allow premature infants to die unattended in hospitals.

      That just doesn’t gain any traction with anyone other than those people who are already pro-life. To the people who accept the statement of “abortion should be legal, safe and rare” as a legitimate position, the manner and time in which the abortion occurs doesn’t matter. And the pro-aborts will twist the above statement into oblivion.

      But I don’t want this to become a threadjack…

      I agree with you – nothing sticks to a person who is adored and admired by the vast majority of those who report.

  • jazzycmk

    Don’t get me wrong. I think both situations reek of Chicago politics.

    Bill Clinton has lunch with Obama one day, and then the next they issue a memo detailing his supposedly innocuous involvement with Sestak? Just coincidence, right?

    Sestak would have considered dropping out of race for an uncompensated advisory position? Please

    And now we have Andrew Romanoff in Colorado producing e-mails of job offers he got from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina to drop out of his race with Michael Bennet. whoops

    That being said, this is all going to get a collective shrug from the general electorate. How hard is it going to be for the DNC to produce dozens of examples of political deals cut by Republicans? They don’t even have to involve the President or be remotely close to what Team Obama has done. Most people won’t make the distinction. They will just assume this sort of thing is done in Washington constantly and the only difference here is that Republicans are trying to make trouble for Obama.

    Yes, it shows yet again that the “most transparent administration in history” is anything but. It also shows that the guy who was going to be a different breed of politician, is just another politician, only more so. So let Hannity and others hit him with that for a bit, but let it go. It’s not going to stick. And there are plenty of thing with which to hit him (health care, oil slick response, persecution of Arizona immigration law, etc.)

  • spiff

    I don’t know why everybody is so startled by these acts of corruption from this President and his Administration, this is what they voted for – “Change”…The Nixon years are looking better and better!
    Spiff

  • whatsupjacques

    Regardless of anyone’s position on the birth certificate issue, facts remain that the administration has spent a boatload of cash fighting the “birthers.” Not to mention the Obama’s home purchase deal with Chicago crook Tony Rezko, or a host of other issues that have from the beginning called into question the integrity of Mr. HopeNChange.

    Note to the Leftists: NONE of this is a surprise to Conservatives.

    ______________________________________________________
    Because they reason with their eyes and not their intellect, I have no tolerance for two types of people: Those who would not vote for a President because of the color of his skin, and those who did.

  • edniceville

    says “Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! Never in his wildest dreams did even he think anyone ever replace him as Worst President Ever! He can now go to his grave safe in the knowledge he was only #2.

    “Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, just not his own set of facts.” – Daniel P. Moynihan