« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Joe Sestak thing is kind of a big deal, actually.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  May 24th, 2010 at 09:26 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I have to disagree with Jim Geraghty here that Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D) admitting that the White House tried to bribe him reflects well on Sestak. Either Sestak is lying about this, in which case he’s, well, a liar who did so for crass political gain; or Sestak’s telling the truth about this, in which case he’s pretty much explicitly participating in a cover-up of a felony. Either way, talking in general terms is not really acceptable. Unless there was an active conspiracy permeating the entire Executive Branch to bribe Joe Sestak, somebody in the White House is innocent of this crime – but until we get the full details of what happens, we won’t know who. And while I may have been heavily critical of the unprofessional behavior of the White House’s staffers, I think it’s hardly fair of Sestak to talk about this scandal in a fashion that implicates all of them.

Put another way: check out this video from the GOP House Oversight committee…

…By now ignorance is not a legitimate excuse regarding this issue – Gibbs’ and Sestak’s squirming to the contrary – and the regular media isn’t any happier about being given the mushroom treatment than Rep. Issa is.

Moe Lane

PS: To answer Jonah: the scandal is that we were told by President Obama that President Obama was better than this. As I noted earlier, I guess that was a lie.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Raven

    Every time Sestak starts to answer the question, his head jerks off to the right…

  • izoneguy

    President Clinton helped put Sestak in office and my guess is that Sestak is “paying the favor back” in trying to knock off Obama.
    The only way Hilary will have a chance is for Obama to be dragged down by scandal and to lose the confidence of his backers.

  • ashland_avenue

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_senator_from_sandy_berger.html

  • skorrent1

    Focus on Sestak’s “honesty” instead of Admin denial and Sestak refusing to say “who”, makes him out to be the good guy.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    It’s an audio-visual aid to explain why Issa is shouting.

  • pragmattic

    In 2012? I keep seeing these veiled references all over the right-wing blogosphere (well, mainly just here).

    If she was planning on a ’12 run, why would she have accepted Secretary of State? It is a huge breech of protocol to campaign/fund raise while working at Foggy Bottom. So she would have to resign at some point, start a PAC, go through the motions, etc…

    Plus, I mean, it’s pretty well assumed that, even this early, Obama is pretty much a shoe in for the DNC nomination.

    Can anyone explain what they know that I don’t?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    That would take a month of Sundays, Skipper.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
  • Achance

    Of course, no Democrat and certainly no Clinton, the people who tried to sell the US to China, would engage in a breach of protocol to campaign/fund raise. You’re an idiot.

  • Achance
  • izoneguy

    some leftys panties in a wad.

    And for good reason…..

    Hilary “took” the position of SOS so she could get the dirt
    on her enemies……

    Obama is just plain stupid if he thought sending Hilary out
    to “reset” relations would keep her off the field….

    Think again.

  • RedBeard

    Either Sestak is a big, bold, full-throttle liar, which will ruin his campaign (a big deal indeed), or he’s being truthful, which implicates the White House in a possible felony.

    The only way anyone could say this is not a big deal is to believe that Sestak is telling the truth, but then to assume that a minor administration figure will be the only one damaged. To follow this train of thought is to ignore Barack Obama’s accountability for what goes on in his administration,

    What did the President know, and when did he know it? Golly, it sure seems like I’ve heard those words before, somewhere.

  • RedBeard

    Although, this is about the possible attempt to get someone to sell out to the highest bidder, so…..

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Why?

    Just frikkin’ why?

    Is it a requirement that the selected here in PA be either incompetent or silver spoon fed power hungry ladder/climbers or obvious felons “not yet convicted” or some combination of the above?

  • Raven

    Or, by not being specific and coming out with the details, he’s covering up multiple felonies, including attempted bribery and interfering with an election.

    So, either way, he’s involved in a major ethics issue. And not in a good way.

  • clowngirl

    I agree that this is a HUGE deal – and a screw up of mammoth proportions. What was Sestak even thinking talking about this if he wasn’t going to tell the whole story? One can only assume that he thought telling people that someone in the administration offered him a job would make them look bad but didn’t realize it was actually a crime and – if Obama’s involvment can be proven- an impeachable offense.

    If Sestak is telling the truth (and I’m inclined to think he is – because if he wasn’t I think the White House would be going after him instead of just dodging questions) he is now covering up a crime. Wouldn’t that make him guilty of aiding and abetting a felony?

    He’s going around saying he knows somebody in the White House committed a felony but he won’t tell who. This sounds like a circumstance in which he can and should be compelled to testify or go to prison himself.

  • 1ofmany

    Living in Pa. I would say that the state politics always was and still is rotten to the core. This state was always controlled by Philadelphia politics and always will be and today Philadelphia is controlled by the Democratic machine.

    When the Pa. legislature was debating about adopting the constitution the federalist were in power and would not even listen to the anti-federalist. It was going to be their way without any discussion, does that seem familiar?, and there was no qualm The ant-federalist got disgusted and boycotted the meetings. So the federalist managed to get them to a session then locked doors. Now with a qualm they voted to for adopting the constitution. Those kind of methods are still very common in our state politics.

  • simplyright4me

    If this guy is telling the truth then this is worst than getting a BJ and not telling the truth about the BJ. Obama would be directly in charge of doing this, it is his administration not Bush’s this time. Bush saw Libby go to jail for a lot less than this bribery charge. It is time the congress start calling a crime a crime.