So Who is Wrong? Rep. Sestak vs. The White House

Shared by Rep. Darrell Issa on Facebook.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

They're working on an acceptable explanation

Soon, maybe the next Obama Press conference it will be discussed (9 more months?).  

Obama will have to hand pick his Press Conf. attendees, sorta like the Townhall "Packed" auditoriums, you can't be too careful about who you let in to these "Public" forums for questions and answers.

If you have experienced

If you have experienced visual impairment problems in the recent past, it is a good idea to visit your doctor to make sure these problems are being caused by ocular migraines and not by strokes or problems with the eye itself. Social Sciences schools | Early Education degree

Axelrod says Sestak is Delusional, but he needs our vote

So the WH supports Sestak, but Axelrod implies Sestak doesn't know what he's talking about on the "Impeachable offense" Job offer, that never was "Documented" .

Are the Democrates starting to eat their own ?

This is ridiculous, of course.

It's not illegal to offer someone a job. If he accepted the job, of course he wouldn't run i the primary - he couldn't do both.

Was it illegal when Reagan offered SI Hayakawa a job to drop out of a crowded California primary? What about the job offer to Judd Gregg? Where was your "outrage" then.

This is nothing and the informed and honest people know it. This is extremists on the right setting the table for endless subpoenas should they happen to take back power in November. More wasted time, more bullshit.

Evidently the White House Read this Law

The "construction" of the Rahm/Clinton link for the Sestak uhhhh....the Sestak "discussion" with Clinton was very much a required construct such that the laws would not apply.

It's not illegal to offer someone a job, as you say.   But to promise a future job to Sestak for a future act of stepping out of the Primary, is very much against the law.   The Law itself has the word "Primary" in its Text.

You've got nothing and you know it

It's not illegal to offer a job. What part of "they wouldn't have to ask him to drop out of the primary because the very act of accepting the job would mean he would have to drop out" don't you get?

You guys are appearing desperate.

Accccccccccorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Is this his Katrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnna??????????

Sestaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak!!!

Birth certificaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!

Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Bachman, Palin...exactly how many clowns can you shove into the little GOP clown car?

You sound like the Video generation, perhaps a visual ...

We got nothing but Videos.....from your favorite MSNBC station....The White house denied that Sestak was telling the truth.

That was then, and today is now.   Today, it was just a non-paying low level White House consulting position of some type.  But the "Valerie Plame" victims are asking this question “The White House got Bill Clinton involved for this?”

Looks like you also need to READ THE LAW before you start making "Its not illegal to offer a job" statements.  An excerpt below for those Democrats that didn't read the Arizona law, so we really don't expect you Liberals to read this law before you start discounting that of which you know nothing ....

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.

 

 

Both Reagan & Hayakawa denied

Both Reagan & Hayakawa denied any job offer was on the table.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/from-the-fact-check-desk...

Was there even a primary when Gregg was offered the Commerce job?

The Reagan pt. would be valid if that Primary had 2 candidates

But you refernce a Reagan era very crowded primary, vs. the 2 man PA12 where the Job offer (if accepted) would have made Specter the winner.
Not so for your Reagan Reference, not a valid comparison.

Its 1981 all over again!

AP, Nov 26, 1981:

Hayakawa Spurns Job Offer 

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

"I'm not interested," said the 75-year-old Hayakawa.

"I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post."

LOL.

 

And here is JS, shovel ready to cover up the "fiasco"

If Obama and Pelosi hadn't bought Congressional votes by the dozens,

If Blagojavich hadn't tried to sell Obama's old seat,

IF the VAERIE PLAME NON-CRIME HAD NOT BEEN PERSUED BEYOND REASON AD NAUSEUM until it was finally dismissed in Court........

if Spectoria's Senate vote hadn't been bought by the DNC for political promises and his move to the Democrat side, 

THEN you might convince 2 or 3 more people in outer Mongolia that your California / Reagan reference above has meaning to the present situation.

Shorter 4speed

I got nuttin'.

You got "Crowded" primary, PA12 had just TWO

If Sestak drops from the Primary, then Spector is a Winner.   Instant payoff, Pay to not Play, definite WIN for Spector.   Obama choses a winner and completes his "purchase" of Spector, vs. your "crowded" scenario with no instant payoff. 

But Hey, Obama's first few months he was wanting to prosecute Bush's staff lawyers over anything and everything, Obama was threating everyone with prosecution.

I just saw Obama on a Lousiiana beach, how touching, and it took him only 5 or 6 weeks for the Photo Op.  

Pluss, we have Obama the NEVER AGAIN video

Shorter 4speed

The strain of pretending there is a story here is making me even more crazy and infantile than usual.

Glad you admitted to your shortcomings, a first step

This is a good first step towards becoming a Tea Party member, and appear less "crazy and infantile".

Now if you could just admit to Obama's shortcomings and quit blaming Bush.

By the way, Sestak is being interviewed on TV on the front of the Capitol Steps, and is kicking Obama and the DC establishment to the curb.   LOL.....

In other words

4speed says "I know you are, but what am I?"

Why the Law about "Buying" Primaries ?

The People chose Sestak in the PA12 Primary. 

Obama wanted to chose from DC, which pre-empts the "We the People" voting and choosing.

That is why the law was written against Politicians buying elections and selecting who runs, and selecting who drops out.  

The DNC and the RNC can support multiple candidates, but the voters make the decision, not the Rahm-a-lam-a-ding-dong in the White House.

Contradictions between the White House and Sestak accounts

Contradictions between the White House and Sestak accountsThe following contradictions exist between the official White House account and the original Sestak interview:• White House: “White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.”•: Sestak: Replied “Yes” to the question “you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”• White House: “It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman. There was no such impropriety. ”• Sestak: Replied “Yes” to the question “Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?• White House: “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.”• Sestak: Replied “No comment” to the question “Was it Navy Secretary?”, when a simple “No” would have sufficed. In a separate interview, MSNBC says that Sestak did confirm the offer of the Secretary of the Navy position.“If proven, the reported actions of the Obama administration are clear violations of three federal laws. The impact and fallout from documented violations, as well as the refusal of the Holder Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter, have the potential to eclipse the Watergate scandal of the early 1970’s – it is that serious.”From: Timeline: The Sestak Bribe and the White House Coveruphttp://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/timeline-sestak-bribe-and-white...The law regarding election bribery is very specific. Obama made the offer of a job to encourage Sestak to quit his primary opposition to Specter. It was Obama who owed Specter due to Specter’s voter for Obama’s health care bill. And, in return, Obama would give Sestak a job only Obama is qualified to offer. THE LAW AGAINST THIS TYPE OF BRIBERY WAS WRITTEN FOR THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. It is a felony. It is worth an investigation. And, it should definitively lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal.Those individuals, senators and congressmen who do not agree that this should be investigated are co-conspirators in this felony. It’s a shame that Obama’s Chicago-style politics tries to muck-up what should be free and fair elections; elections decided by voters and NOT by crooked politicians — the law is very clear on this point

Where Does Bill Clinton Fit In?

and why are you paraphrasing? Just link to the source.

As for MSNBC, was it one of the talking-heads bozos or was it from a reporter? There's a difference.

You're saying Obama was directly involved from the language you used. Where's the proof?

This isn't a RedState circle jerk. Even if the diaries are the typical right-wing regurgitation from Limbaugh, Beck and Weekly Standard, you'll get checked in the comments.

Think harder, because Obama is just plain smarter than the right. Try modernisation. It worked for the Conservative Party in the U.K.

Epistemic Closurely Yours.

-tlv

Think dumber, "O" isn't smart enough to close Gitmo

Obama supports you in an Election, shortly after that, you're toast.   That's about the only Obama proven track record.

Snap-Your-Finger-President

There are plenty of Dems who believe the President should be able to snap his fingers and solve all the leftover problems from the Bush debacle. It just doesn't work that way. However, here's a short list that you, of course, in your Tea Party madness forgets:

Health Care Reform. How you forgot that is a mystery since it's your reason for hating.

Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

The Stimulus

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

Opened up the coast for drilling. Ironic, no. Obama was playing politics to get a climate law by allowing drilling and now is paying the price by losing support from his base. That's what happens when you listen to Republicans. They wanted drilling even though the U.S. only has 3% of oil reserves; like that is going to make a dent to our energy problem. Lesson learned, Mr. President. Republicans only have political solutions instead of real solutions. (Love the way Jindal is demanding FEDERAL action now. Private business, get out of the way. Hypocrite)

etc,

Epistemic Closurely Yours,

-TLV

Why not just do a 25 trillion Stimulus and be done with it ?

I mean if the Trillion dollar Stumulus didn't work, lets do one bigger and better, say 25 trillion.   After all, K-Rug-Man says we cut it short.   Didn't you know, we're in a "recovery" ?

As for your "reform" comment, we "ain't got no stinking" health care reform until 2014, we can't afford it without taxing everyone for 4 years running, Dufus. 

Like Krugman you're not to bright in the face of economic reality and 10% unemployment, still rather delusional from BDS I suspect.

As for Gitmo

You have real nerve complaining that Obama doesn't close Gitmo when Republicans and Conservative Dems stand in the way of closing Gitmo. Even after it was revealed only 10% were actual high level detainees, while the rest either innocent or small fishes.

As for economic matters, you are typical of the absurdity for Republicans to complain about the deficit and debt but when they were in power they; passed tax cuts mainly for the wealthy; enacted a new prescription drug entitlement; doubled the defense budget; fight two wars; and created Homeland Defense Department, all the while putting it on the national credit card. That's how you add  $1,000,000,0000,000 to the national debt.

I agree the security measures should have been passed. I agree with increasing the defense budget. I disagree with the Iraq war. It may surprise you how much I agreed with Bush. However, he and his Republicans buddies should have paid for it just like the WWII generation. They went into deficit spending too, but at the same time they increased revenue and payed down the debt afterwards while creating a new Department of Defense, new highways, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.

Let me put it more crudely: conservatives are like guests who get drunk, puke and trash the place, but the next morning complain that the place is a mess. No wonder the Republican Party only has 20-25% have approval rating. Conservatives have not changed a bit.

Democrats are the "Majority" in Congress, Close Gitmo

Dems have the Majority in both houses, Close Gitmo if you dare.   Wait, Scott Brown changed things after Teddy kicked the bucket, so  maybe the last 6 months or so you didn't have the Majority.   So what's the excuse the first 12 months ?   I think Gitmo is still open because NY said NO to Obambi, and the American people echo'ed the "NO" to Gitmo closing.   Eric Holder is a squirrel with no clue.

More soldiers in Afghanistan than Iraq now, I guess BUSH and those out of control republicans since 2007 did it ?    Wait, 2007 was when Pelosi and friends had ANOTHER MAJORITY in congress.  

What ARE you talking about when you reference "Republican spending" and Deficits ?

Hey Toddski, someone followed your advice "think harder"

Explain this one 

The rules of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board expressly forbid U.S. government employees from serving. The White House plan called for Sestak to remain in his job as congressman from Pennsylvania's 7th District, so he wouldn't have been allowed on the board.

"Are we to believe that Rahm Emanuel, a former member of Congress himself, dispatched President Clinton to maneuver Admiral Sestak out of the Senate primary by dispatching him with an unpaid appointment that Congressman Sestak couldn't even accept if he wanted to?" asks Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Can-GOP-stir-up-public-to-dig-into-Sestak-affair_-95271664.html#ixzz0pcmUILGt