There is a lot more to a little covered story about Bill Clinton stabbing the Administration in the back. What Clinton said has great meaning.
First, the background: (From The Hill)
Either former President Bill Clinton is lying, or Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak is. Both can't be right.
You may remember a few months ago, prior to defeating incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Rep. Sestak went public with allegations the Obama White House sent an emissary to offer him an administration job as a sort of bribe to drop his challenge to Specter.
Sestak scored points for integrity and standing up to the White House by refusing the offer, and went on to defeat Specter. It was later revealed that "emissary" was none other than Clinton. The White House even conceded as much. Or perhaps they are also lying?
So what should we make of Clinton's triple denial while in Pennsylvania this week that he tried to get Sestak out of the race and even claims he was never accused of that? He's even apparently on tape with the denials, but I don't know if he wagged his finger at the questioner, like he did in another, more famous, denial.
But clearly, either Clinton or Sestak is lying. And Pennsylvania voters should know which one before heading into the voting booths in November. Actually, we all should know.
Yes, we ALL should know, because Clinton said more in that impromptu interview. While reaching out to the crowd of admirers, he said something completely new. (Unless you're Glenn Beck and you just stated on your show that 'we had already won' and 'something is happening', and all those 'get out of jail free cards', and 'it is good'.) Or you watch that show and have paid attention to the little things he says. Especially those where his little cantankerous child takes over and he very transparently rubs it in, directly to the very collection of people who would very well know what Clinton said.
Sestak started talking about being offered a job by the White House. Then a good story was concocted, Bill Clinton was used as the diversion but good ol' Bill stabbed the White House in the back. And it doesn't really matter who is lying. It matters that obviously the White House was breaking the law. Either way.
Regarding that breaking of the law, Clinton said nothing at first:
But then this:
Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.
But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement. Read on...
According to a source familiar with the situation, the White House asked Clinton and his adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to suggest to Sestak an unpaid position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
... Here's the official response from the White House counsel on what happened. The White House says, as noted above, that they asked Clinton to suggest to Sestak an unpaid advisory board position.
The White House's response says no Secretary of the Navy gig was discussed, and that this sort of offer has happened numerous times in past administrations.
But it certainly states that Clinton was asked to suggest to Sestak. And Sestak has admitted that Clinton did indeed reach out to him, even recounting a phone conservation.
But Bill, doesn't see it that way. He flatly denies ever having that conversation, ever being involved, and he placed it in a context that is the real news. He said he was not accused of that. (Pay close attention to what he says at time marker: :30)
"In fact, I wasn't even accused of that."
Nobody was accusing him of 'that' when they used his name to give Sestak the story line, to cover whomever it is: all the way up, potential. He was not referring to anything he had been accused of before the Sestak situation. So his admission that he had been accused, can only come from an official proceeding.
Now, that is indeed something happening, and it would indeed be very very good. Didn't hear Bill listed in the 'get out of jail free card' list. Charlie Rangle was there, though, and Hillary Clinton, oh and let's not forget Timothy Geithner. All back stabbing Obama's master George. Bill has just been a bit more forward about it, that's all.
What a story that is. So what was he accused of? Who did the accusing? When did it happen? It certainly can't be any reference to Lewinsky or Whitewater. Those were long before Sestak became a topic. So what did Clinton refer to? WHO ACCUSED HIM OF WHAT?
Cross posted at pPatriotRadioNews.com