« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s Watergate?

With all the attention on President Obama’s bungling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the news of Congressional calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate of an alleged job offer by the Obama Administration to get Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) out of the Pennsylvania Senate race has been pushed down the news pages. This is a serious matter and something that will not be brushed aside. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), former Bush Administration official Karl Rove and Senate Judiciary Republicans have raised the issue that somebody in the Obama Administration may have committed a felony.

This Administration has held themselves out to be more ethical than administrations of the past. President Obama’s declared in his inaugural address on January 21, 2009 that:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

This “new era of responsibility” should include an open discussion by the President about whether they did offer Congressman Sestak a job to get out of the primary race for the Democrat nomination to be the next Senator from the state of Pennsylvania.

The White House Web Site promises transparency and accountability right now:

President Obama has consistently made clear that he will strive to lead the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history. Whether it is reigning in the influence of lobbyists in Washington, bringing unprecedented accountability to federal spending, opening doors to engagement with the American public, or shutting down the “revolving door” that carries special interest influence in and out of the government, the highest standards will be sought in every thing the federal government does.

Those promises will be tested over the next few weeks with calls by some Republicans for the Obama Administration to come clean about an alleged job offer to Sestak. Karl Rove has alleged that one of two things are true: either Sestak is lying; or, a crime may have been committed by somebody in the Obama Administration.

Karl Rove via the L.A. Times as quoted on the Fox News Channel:

One of two things is true, you can’t have two things true. One or the other is true. Either Joe Sestak is lying and he was not offered a position in the administration in return for getting out of the primary. You know he’s a liar, in which case not worthy of public service. Or, he’s telling the truth, in which case somebody inside the White House committed a felony. 18 USC 211 says that, a government official cannot promise a job in return for anything of value and it has a long list of values.

Congressman Darrell Issa has compared this scandal to President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Bridget Johnson of The Hill reports:

An e-mail from Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) campaign suggested Wednesday that the controversy over Rep. Joe Sestak’s (D-Pa.) alleged administration job offer could be President Barack Obama’s Watergate scandal. In an e-mail with the subject line “The Sestak Affair – Obama’s Watergate?”, the ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform committee focused on “long-standing questions” about the offer Sestak says was made to him to urge him to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.

Senate Republicans are concerned enought that they have sent a letter dated May 26, 2010 to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting “the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate” this matter. The letter is signed by all Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee including Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The letter alleges a possible violation of various criminal laws including but not limited to “18 U.S.C. Sec. 600 (promise of employment or other benefit for political activity).”

That law reads:

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.

There are questions as to whether other federal statutes may have been violated. The letter to Holder states in part:

The allegations in this matter are very serious and, if true, suggest a possible violation of various federal criminal laws intended to safeguard our political process from the taint of bribes and political machine manipulation. The first hint of improper conduct came to light in a February 2010 cable television interview when Congressman Sestak revealed that a White House official offered him a federal job in an effort to end his campaign in his state’s Senate primary.

Sestak stated in a televised interview that an official of the White House contacted him and offered him a federal job to pull out of the race. President Obamawas not shy in his support for Senator Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) re-election bid and this action is consistent with the President’s support for Specter over Sestak. The letter further states:

We do not believe the Department of Justice can properly defer to White House lawyers to investigate a matter that could involve “a serious breach of the law.” The White House cannot possibly manage an internal investigation of potential criminal misconduct while simultaneously crafting a public narrative to rebut the claim that misconduct occurred.

President Obama promised more information about this matter at his press conference today and we can only hope that the “most open, transparent, and accountable government in history” removes the taint of Chicago Machine style politics and appoints a special prosecutor to look into the matter.

For Tabitha Hale’s take on the controversy check out this Red State post.

COMMENTS

  • erod

    Forget it Obama’s untouchable and above the law. Besides it’s not like we have a press who would ever express an interest in a Democratic President breaking the law.

  • throwback59

    conference? A report will be release soon (“not months or weeks”) showing nothing improper was done. It will all be explained. DO NOT look behind the curtain.

  • snowday

    Not only Sestak. Andrew Romanoff in Colorado was offered a job to not run in the Dem primary against Michael Bennett. There seems to be a pattern here…

    • acat

      Go read up on the Shakman decree. This is the school of politics that Obama went to – the one where a double-digit percentage of City Water Department workers don’t show up for work because they’re “patronage”. The one where a mobbed-up banker and a pawn broker with a domestic violence record can win the Senate and Lieutenant Governor nominations.

      As long as the national media remains afraid to tell the truth, this story will go precisely nowhere.

      Cat predicts this will have no more “bang” than Travelgate did to Billy Jeff Clinton.

      Mew

      • merryj1

        Some serious threats to force his resignation after he won the Lt. Gov spot in the Illinois Primary. The threats, from a “very high” or “very powerful” Democrat were (first) ‘Your taxes may be audited, and you should make absolutely certain they’re impecably substantiated,” followed by “Even if you’re not guilty of anything, you WILL go to prison” (if you don’t step aside).

        After he stepped down from the Lt. Gov candidate spot, the IL Dem Party refused to allow the Primary runner-up – an African-American – to ascend to the spot as candidate for the General — instead, they appointed a daughter of former Senator Simon (her resume is about as impressive as a high school dropout whose career highlight was a part-time job at Burger King — sarc/off).

        The pawnbroker got some moral support from numerous callers to a Chicago radio talk show (Don Wade & Roma, WLS-am) advising him to run as an Independent and they would send campaign contributions — a lot of outrage at the Dems forcing him out after he won the Primary. I believe he did get the required signatures and is running as an Independent.

    • gekster

      Didn’t John Cherry drop out of the Michigan Governors race.
      He was the easy Dem shoe in for the job.

      The WH “asked” him to step down because he could not win.

      from:
      http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/john_cherry_may_drop_out_of_mi.html

      excerpt:
      “Early in December, rumors persisted the Obama Administration would offer Cherry a post because of concerns he could not win in 2010. Cherry backers said the rumors were unfounded and also dismissed questions about shakeups in the campaign as “routine.”"

    • laura_lee

      response to a yes vote on Heath Care Reform?? Let’s not forget about that. I know a midwestern or western coingressman’s brother recieved some sort of job in exchange for HIS vote. And I’m wonderin g what Bart Stupak got for his now famous flip-flop for bogus ProLife language in the Reform bill?

      Absolutely despicable.

      We HAVE to keep up the pressure to investigate this.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    These ‘strongly worded letters’ are squat unless the person sending them is a bad mamajama, who can make threats to do things that hurt them ALOT, and who can back them up if he gets no cooperation.

    That said, Issa is made of fairly stout stuff. But that letter should have had a section that started with “If you fail to act on this”. And it should have included something along the lines of “starting in January, not only will the newly GOP House begin investigations of the Sestak affair, we’re going to take a good long hard look at your handling of the panty bomber, your handling of the New Black Panthers, your personal involvement in the Marc Rich pardon, and……”

    Not to mention holding up funding for pretty much anything that makes Holder sweat.

    • thomasgipper

      And stop all business in the Senate until a special prosecutor is appointed — fillibuster everything Republican squishes. And it can’t be Fitzgerald. It’s too much of an open question whether he’s a hack for the Democrats.

      • davesinsanantonio

        they have no backbones. Where will they get a transplant from? If the so-called leadership had a single backbone between them, America would not be in the mess it is in.
        But, if they can ever find a backbone maybe they can also grow a pair and actually do something that will benefit America.

    • voxoreason

      Holder floats trial balloons for Obama. Does anyone believe that Holder has any power whatsoever except to serve as a lackey for Obama? GIGO

      Sestak has mentioned (googled on this to check; I did in order to get the quotes right) being contacted by a “White House official” about a “White House position” (I used these quoted terms after Sestak in my seach; his name doesn’t require the quotes nor even Joe).

      Is Clinton still a “White House official” beyond being former president?

      The WH “position” turns out to be what is being described as a member of a Presidential committee, such committees being dismissed as “a dime a dozen.” Nothin’ special. Nothing of value beyond the prestige for which he was presumably bailing out of his campaign. Talk about “something of value”! What a crummy bribe for bailing! We’ve established what you are; now we’re just hagglin’ over the price. Would this be a low-ball offer or what?

      Are these “dozens” of committees doing their work in the White House? Where? Everything I read says that there isn’t a lot of “free range” in the WH in the business end. Sec of the Navy, on the other hand, could be credibly described as a WH position, as that’s been everyone’s first guess given that Sestak was an admiral in the Navy, one of a very few actual facts we learn about this affair.

      Bob Beckel, the lib dish rag that gets face time on TV to present the generic liberal viewpoint at any given point in time (generally when the libs have once again stepped in it) dismisses this as no big deal, happens all the time, blah, blah, blah.

      Step along, folks. Nothin’ to see here.

      And this was way back in, what, June-July of last year… as though Sestak (to guess from his own remarks on the traditional late Friday afternoon) wouldn’t have been deeply invested in preparing his Senate run at that time? (Obama never stopped campaigning after the election or even his inauguration. Due to campaign funding issues, when would be the best time to be preparing for a race for anything? Perhaps the summer before the election? At the latest?)

      Does Sestak have a “hole card”? If he gets the brush off from the WH as a fall guy, then goes on to lose in November, this is a guy who might have an interesting auto-bio he’d have the rest of his life to write… however long that might be.

      Just a thought: what might happen if Sestak dropped out of the race, then Obama actually makes him Sec of Navy? It wouldn’t be the bribe that inspired him to drop out, but the probability of losing. (Could a poll be set up so as to produce such results, ie, the probability of his losing?)

      I can see Sestak as the next Vince Foster. Hey, with Obama putting in a B+ performance (as he sees it) during his first year, and his disastrous failures even with his “successes,” would anything this guy does leave you thinking, “Nope, never happen… I can’t believe Obama would do something like this”?

      Clinton skated on Foster and later perjury/obstruction of justice. Then again, Clinton had political “street smarts” to spare, knowing when to go left, when to lean right, and let the GOP win one from time to time, while he took the credit, eg, “ending welfare as we know it,” which as Dick Morris suggested fulfilled his ’92 campaign promise (despite taking a pass on the bill a couple of times before yielding). Reportedly, Hilary was furious.

      I’ll bet Michelle could make an impact if she should get furious about anything.

      Love to be a fly on the wall should that ever happen.

      Then again, it’s today.

      Hope everyone will at least take a mome to pay respects to our military fallen. These guys gave all. My father, a teen Marine in WW II, came home. Always called him on Memorial Day, but he would just say that it wasn’t his day. I’d just tell him, “I know. That’s why I get to call you today.” He’d chuckle at that every time. He never talked too much about his service until a few years before he died. God bless those that didn’t get the opportunities my father did. If you have a relative that is a vet of WW II (or any other, for that matter), treasure this warrior while you can.

  • jonreagan

    One or the other will get badly hurt in this thing…..frankly, I couldn’t believe that Obama didn’t have his usual double-talk and lies at the ready for today’s press conference. That was an extremely weak answer he gave, and just proves that they have something to cover up.

    What will give this scandal legs is the fact the guy they were trying to bribe is on the ballot in an election this November. The smarmier it gets, the worse things get for Sestak. And if it was Rahm Emmanuel who offered the bribe, I doubt he’ll take the fall by himself.

    • IJB

      They’re gonna lose up to 10 Senate seats anyway – might as well make one of ‘em solid Red to protect the “President”…

    • Jack_Savage

      Sestak: “I misunderstood. They simply told me I was highly qualified for a variety of positions, and if this whole Senate thing didn’t work out they would love to have me serve my country in this administration. There was no quid pro quo, just an encouraging conversation from people who have the country’s best interests at heart.”

      Obama: “I am pleased to report that after an investigation of historic proportions by the most transparent administration in the history of history, this whole matter can be chalked up to a big misunderstanding. We, particularly Rahm Emmanuel, are in awe of the way Congressman Sestak has served his country, and were simply informing him should he change his mind about challenging our good friend Arlen, he would probably have plenty of other opportunities to continue his service. Boy, what a relief to know we are still the most ethical administration in the history of history, and that the moron Democrats in PA will buy this hook, line and sinker! It’s time to move on, and let me go to work for the American people – or whatever Clinton said that time.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        These kind of things in Washington have a way of leeching on to an administration and doing continuous damage. This is by far the biggest hole in their armor they have shown so far.

        • Jack_Savage

          …is that this is the second time it has been reported to have happened. If I were Obama, I would be much more concerned with Blago. All that under oath stuff and all.

          Now for Sestak – if this truly happened, he is covering for a felony and will lose the election. Bad outcome. The politically smart thing for Sestak to do, and what he will do, is to go along with the “misunderstanding” meme, let it get reported as fact for two or three news cycles, blow through a weekend and continue on. No quid pro quo, no felony, no problem. Sorry for the trouble guys.

          BTW, look for this “report” either this Sunday afternoon or July 4.

          • IJB

            Thus he will lose.

            Thus my suspicion that Sestak *will* be the Fall Guy for this, somewhat along the lines of what you suggest.

            But it will still cost Sestak the election, esp. once you combine that with his getting fired from the Navy.

            The guy’s burnt toast now…

          • Common_Cents

            Where the heck did this euphemism for lying start? Sestak will just keep saying he misspoke just like blumenthal

          • Jack_Savage

            Sestak could win too. We underestimate the power of the unions in PA and how the union mentality has infected the character of a once proud and properous state.

            This is Sestak’s race to lose, and if they make excuses even at the level of a high schooler caught smoking in the schoolyard, they’ll come out of this looking like the victim.

  • crosley

    My fear is Republicans will just drop it after being stonewalled.

    Republicans should keep it alive, and Toomey should absolutely run ads beating Sestak over the head to name names. it severely tarnishes the credibility of both Sestak and the White House.

    I could absolutely see this scandal being the difference between Sestak winning or losing.

    If Karl Rove had done something like this, the Dems wouldn’t back down till he was getting frog-marched out of the White House.

  • MarkByron

    If Obama can be quoted as saying “What can we offer Sestak to get out of the race?”, then he’s in trouble. Even there, it’s unlikely to have him forced out of office if that were the case; if Bill Clinton gets through the Senate on his perjury rap, 16 Democratic senators (assuming a 51-seat GOP majority next year) aren’t going to toss him under the bus. There are a few straight-shooting donkeys there, but sadly not 16.

    That being said, it will be interesting to see who made the offer and if they used some weasel-words that steered just clear of Sec-60 problems. It will be hard to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt without it being on tape or heard by witnesses.

    • redtillimdead

      Feingold
      Lieberman
      Nelson (NE)
      That’s all I got.

      • jonreagan

        I agree with your Senate head count….but a GOP House could make Obama the third President in history to be impeached. To your point, it’s unlikely that even a GOP-controlled Senate could convict him, but it would surely make his reelection effort a heavy lift.

        All of this might sound like wishful thinking. But very few thought that Richard Nixon had anything to worry about when the Watergate break-in occurred in June of 1972. These things often begin with actions or conversations that seem harmless.

  • romeg

    when the much over-used phrase “smoking gun” fills the front pages and airwaves along with the equally over-used “what did he know and when did he know it?”

    But it will not amount to a hill of beans unless we re-take BOTH HOUSES in November, which, as things now stand, is a numerical impossibility. Without a majority in the House, He will not be impeached. Without a majority in the Senate he will not be convicted.

    The Congress will, as it did during the Clinton administration, descend into the impeachment morass and all those newly elected conservatives will become, in the collective mind of the public, tainted with this scandal, driven by racism, partisanship and ideology at the expense of the Republic. The media, meanwhile, will make this into another kind of case altogether wherein facts are meaningless. eg, never mind that Clinton committed perjury in open court. His was impeached because he had an illicit affair with an intern.

    Illicit affairs only inure to the satisfaction of the media when they involve conservatives, Republicans or Evangelical Christians. Democrats get a free pass for this behavior.

    Likewise, racism only plays against White Male Republicans. A sufficiently large percentage of voters do not give a fig about actionable facts. They care only about what they read in USA Today or see on MSNBC or CNN.

    If we bet the farm on this event an opportunity will be lost and the restoration of America’s Greatness by defeating the dark forces of evil that currently control the government will be deferred for yet another election cycle.

    It is fine and dandy for Congressman Issa and one or two others to pound on this and stoke the media and show them to be the vacuous partisan hacks that they truly are but let’s not allow this scandal, however odious it may be, to interfere with the greater goal of restoring the Constitution as the law of the land. In other words, let’s not get greedy here. We are not going to get rid of this idiot by way of impeachment and trial by the Senate. That is a guaranteed loosing strategery.

    • redcometchar2010

      The Republicans should keep up in their efforts to find out what happened here. If Obama did what Sestak did said he did, than he broke the law. I’ll talk about what should happen if that is the case. If Sestak was lying, than the RNC should bash him with it to damage his credibility while Toomey guts him for his voting record. If Sestak continues to obfuscate, than Issa should bring an ethics complaint against him for alleging a crime occurred when one didn’t, which might compel him to spill his guts and will taint him in the Senate race.

      If Obama did offer Sestak the job, than the Republicans would be wise NOT to go for impeachment. Other posters here will be right when they say impeachment would backfire and harm us while doing no damage to the president. The press would rip us to shreds and the public wouldn’t care enough to support impeachment. If Obama did offer a job, censure would be the best bet, especially if we took back one or both houses. A censure is an official reprimand, it is easily defensible, it gives wavering dems a way of appearing to be noble and honest without tossing out their party’s head and the public would most likely back it if the facts were on our side. Plus, there are no formal rules (to my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong), about censuring a sitting official so it can be done with a simple majority. Even if we still are in the minority in the Senate, Lieberman and a few Dems would jump on board for a majority to approve censure anyway. Also, Obama goes into a re-election campaign with an official censure on his record (not even Bush had that and he barely won with a horrible opponent and a much better environment, imagine what would happen to Obama with all of his baggage AND an official censure for unethical behavior).

      Just my thoughts on the matter. Hope they clarify.

      • larueladue

        Attempted bribery is a felony, and if he cannot be impeached, can he not be prosecuted?

        I know that Presidents are supposed to be immune from lawsuits but does this also cover blatant law breaking (if that is what it is)? Is the Congress our only recourse (short of the voting box)?

    • davesinsanantonio

      Well reasoned post.

  • thomasgipper

    Reported by Fox News on their website tonight:

    “Sestak?s brother Richard, who is running the Senate campaign, received a call from the White House Wednesday to discuss the matter, but Rep. Sestak wouldn’t detail that conversation further.” Bombshell. Here’s how the call might have gone:

    Some White House staffer calls Sestak’s brother and says: “Hi Rob! Congratulations on Arlen. Pretty hapless campaign. Say, Joe’s been making some strange comments on TV about some conversation he had with a JUNIOR staffer. Why don’t we get our stories straight about this JUNIOR staffer, you know, make sure we’re all on the same page as to who said what, and to whom. After all, Joe’s TV comments made it seem like someone IMPORTANT actually made an offer. It couldn’t have been anyone IMPORTANT, right? Not Rhambo! Certaintly not the Dear Leader. Joe MUST have mis-heard some grunt talking. [Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean, say no more, say no more!] ” The call continues….

    “You know, this could go to litigation. If there is, there’ll be depositions. And we don’t wan’t to accidentially get tripped up on a single question. Some ambitious prosecutor might want your scalp for something like that. Jail is bad, you know.”

    But unfortunately for the sleazy staffer, the Sestak brothers are having none of it. They play it straight laced, honest, and Richard shoots down the request. Richard is going to make sure none of these Chicago sleazes gets anywhere near his brother. And to top it off, like LIGHTNING, they tip off Fox News about the sleazy White House staffer calling and talking with Richard (but NOT Joe). Wow! You see, the Sestaks have NO intention whatsoever of going to JAIL; or of having their good names smeared into the mud. And they’ve now made it clear — they will spill their GUTS, thruthfully, before a grand jury. Someone’s going to jail, but it’s not going to be the Sestaks.

    Excellent.

  • rocstation

    Obama’s words are double-minded. The context isn’t in the words or speeches themselves, the context is in the worldview underpinning the rhetoric in which the words are couched.

    The law is clear. So, ostensibly, is the transparency of the White House regarding their motives. What isn’t clear is whether Holder and others (including Sestak) will have it within themselves to do the right thing beyond the initial fulfillment of “responsibility.”

    We already know no one is immune from being under the bus, so will they jump ship or obstruct?

    A few things you can count on from the President:

    ? he will blame others and take minimal/no responsibility,
    ? he will tell us what his responsibilities are and his expectations of us as we continue to strive toward a more ethical and transparent government,
    ? he will admonish us about how much we need to work together to continue to bring accountability to a new level in this, America’s greatest crisis since the 1930′s,
    ? he will try to convince us how transparent and ethical his administration has become and will continue to be throughout this process, especially after 8-years of failed policies,
    ? he will be elitist in his prose while faking egalitarianism
    ? and he’ll have to channel some more Deval Patrick.

  • 912defender

    questioned President Obama on the Sestak matter, he said a statement would be issued shortly by the White House, but that no impropriety would be found. So wasn’t that the answer already?

  • Common_Cents

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se

    “Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false. The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26,2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.”

    Notice they only claim he was not offered the position of Sec Navy.

    I want them to categorically deny ANY position was offered. Freakin slimeball wordsmiths.

    Of all people to involve, slick willy. “It depends what your definition of is, is.”

  • tex41lb

    Has anyone addressed the offer(s) made to specter if he changed parties, I doubt arlen jumped for free. O would have a hand in getting a rino to trumpet his greatness.