The Sestak Bribe - Who in the WH made the call?

[Toot La-Rue]

The White House is mum

The leftist press won't press it

We might as well have a little fun speculating who in Obama's administration offered a sitting United States Congressman a job in the administration for not running against Arlen Spector.

There are several sticky questions - Who dreamed up this highly unethical (and illegal - if bribery still is illegal in this era) strategy?
Who made the call?
Who authorized the call?
But more importantly - who authorized any of this to happen in the first place?
And, why is the US Attorney ignoring bribes under his very nose? These are serious charges (felonies) and Holder is holding his tongue.

Disuss.

I'll start - I think our sitting president, Barack Hussein Obama authorized it. You don't bribe a sitting United States Congressman with a job offer to be Secretary of the Navy and not approve of such an action. "Plausible deniability" in such a case is not only implausible, but ridiculous.

And I agree with the San Francisco Examiner's conclusion to all this:

The attorney general’s silence can only be construed as his consent to violating the law. - Ibid.

 

[DaisyDay]

Would the job not be a real one, would it have been a newly created political appointee job?

If not, so what?

 

[Toot La-Rue]

Would the job not be a real one, would it have been a newly created political appointee job?

If not, so what?

Not sure how to respond to this.

Someone in the administration, the executive branch of government, attempts to bribe a sitting United States Congressman with a job - so they won't run against another member of congress - - - and your only question is "so what?"

 

[JustOneWay]

Offering a job is now a bribe? lol

 

[Toot La-Rue]

Offering a job is now a bribe? lol

Well, yeah it is - when the job is contingent on not running for office against another candidate (Arlen Spectre) the administration wants to win.

You find that funny? You find humor in this administration bribing a sitting member of congress?

FWLIW - the administration doesn't think it's funny. In fact they're finding it quite "mumming," - at least they know what they did was not only wrong, but criminally so.

 

[JustOneWay]

Well, yeah it is - when the job is contingent on not running for office against another candidate (Arlen Spectre) the administration wants to win.

You find that funny? You find humor in this administration bribing a sitting member of congress?

FWLIW - the administration doesn't think it's funny. In fact they're finding it quite "mumming," - at least they know what they did was not only wrong, but criminally so.

How do you know that the administration bribed Sestak?

 

[DaisyDay]

Not sure how to respond to this.

Someone in the administration, the executive branch of government, attempts to bribe a sitting United States Senator with a job - so they won't run against another member of congress - - - and your only question is "so what?"

Offering a qualified person a real job is not a bribe, even if it has other benefits. The person could not hold both jobs simultaneously.

 

[SOAD]

I'll start - I think our sitting president, Barack Hussein Obama authorized it. You don't bribe a sitting United States Senator with a job offer to be Secretary of the Navy and not approve of such an action. "Plausible deniability" in such a case is not only implausible, but ridiculous.

If found to be true, it is a serious offense. Unfortunately all we have is Sestak's accusation with no evidence or names. Apparently, this happend months ago. If Sestak's story is true, wouldn't he also be in trouble for not coming forward with information to a crime? If Sestak is lying, then he is again in trouble. Either way, Sestak may be in trouble regardless if the story is true or false.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

Offering a job is now a bribe? lol

How do you know that the administration bribed Sestak?

You apparently acknowledge he was offered a job (i.e. your first post), but don't think it was a "bribe."

Well, let's break it down.

According to Mr. Sestak, he was bribed by "someone in the White House" - an allegation he aired publicly back in February on a radio show. According to Mr. Sestak, he was offered a job to dissuade him from running against Arlen Specter.

Do we know he's telling the truth, that he was indeed bribed thus? No, we don't.

Consider though that we have a sitting member of the United States Congress making a public accusation that someone in the administration attempted to bribe him with a job offer if he would not run for a seat in the Senate against sitting incumbent Arlen Specter.

One might think that such an accusation from someone in as high a position as his (United States Congressman) would carry at least some weight. Although, Mr. Sestak is a Democrat so perhaps that mitigates the charge accordingly.

I say that last entirely tongue-in-cheek, but apparently, given some of the responses here there may be more truth to that than even I care to acknowledge.

Consider too that the administration is vacillating in their response to the charge - apparently being unwilling to give a straight answer to questions put to them about it:

In mid-March, Gibbs said he had spoken with others in the White House about the job offer, but he would say only that the conversations that took place on the issue "are not problematic."

On Thursday, Gibbs repeatedly refused to answer any questions about whether the White House offered Sestak a job, referring reporters to his March statement.

Consider too that a similar offer was put to Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, to persuade him not to run against the accidental senator, Michael Bennett. It's not exactly proof of a pattern, but it is two stones on a path in the same direction.

As to a "pattern" - there is also the similarity w/r to the fact that both offers pertained to seats in the Senate - a majority in which the administration needs if it is to continue to pursue its goals of fundamentally changing America.

So, do we know these things for a fact? Well, the Romanov case is well-documented, and while not "bribery" - it is an instance of the White House attempting to influence state politics for its own ends. That much is certain. But the Sestak charge is a different animal entirely, inasmuch as Mr. Romanov is not a sitting US Congressman, but Mr. Sestak is. And it is Mr. Sestak who made the allegation public. Fact though? Unknown.

There's certainly sufficient cause for wondering why the US Attorney hasn't shown any interest in investigating the charge. He too is silent on the matter.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

For what little it's worth (FWLIW): Mr. Sestak confirmed again on Sunday's Meet the Press that he was indeed offered a job if he would stay out of the Senate race:

"It's interesting. I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it." Sestak said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That's their responsibility."

Yet Sestak confirmed to NBC's David Gregory that the incident did take place.

"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about." Source

Of course, he beat Specter, earning top billing for the primary ballot. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds in the next few months, particularly inasmuch as he is now going silent on the issue himself and the White House hasn't withdrawn its support for Mr. Specter...

 

[JustOneWay]

You apparently acknowledge he was offered a job (i.e. your first post), but don't think it was a "bribe."

Well, let's break it down.

I only acknowledged what was in the OP, nothing more....

This has no legs and isn't even a scandal. The only thing that will happen is your blood pressure increasing when this is dismissed, then forgotten....

 

[Ryal Kane]

Even if it's true it seems pretty mild in US terms.
Ah, America: the best democracy money can buy.

 

[TeaPartier]

So what? That was a BRIBE. I guess Obama can do anything and liberals would think it is ok.

 

[TeaPartier]

I only acknowledged what was in the OP, nothing more....

This has no legs and isn't even a scandal. The only thing that will happen is your blood pressure increasing when this is dismissed, then forgotten....

LOL not a scandal? Sorry bribery is a scandal. If Bush had done something like this, liberals would be calling for impeachment. Total double standard.

 

[JustOneWay]

So what? That was a BRIBE. I guess Obama can do anything and liberals would think it is ok.

But where is the proof Obama did anything. Do you believe everything without proof?

 

[TeaPartier]

But where is the proof Obama did anything. Do you believe everything without proof?

So you are saying Sestak is lying?

 

[JustOneWay]

So you are saying Sestak is lying?

Did I say that Sestak was lying?

 

[d'Sasster]

So you are saying Sestak is lying?

It is the schtick of some to wax contrary yet not actually "say" anything. Easier to be contrary, making others prove what they said and appear the wiser, than post your own thoughts and risk quite the contrary.

 

[JustOneWay]

It is the schtick of some to wax contrary yet not actually "say" anything. Easier to be contrary, making others prove what they said and appear the wiser, than post your own thoughts and risk quite the contrary.

Then there are some who really say nothing at all while pretending to be a psychologist....

I said there is no proof. How can I take either side? Besides, he specifically said Obama offered the bribe, and I asked where is the proof it was Obama. It could have been another person in the administration.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

I said there is no proof. How can I take either side? Besides, he specifically said Obama offered the bribe, and I asked where is the proof it was Obama. It could have been another person in the administration.

What might your thoughts be regarding a sitting United States Congressman twice publicly claiming "someone" from this administration offered him a job if he'd stay out of the senate race?

Do you think his standing as a United States Congressman should carry any weight in such an allegation?

Do you think his allegation is worthy of investigation by the Justice Department?

Do you think the press ought to press the issue until we have some answers one way or the other?

Or do you think it is a non-issue altogether?