Posted on 05/28/2010 10:59:14 AM PDT by malkee
At the urging of the Obama White House, former President Bill Clinton asked Rep. Joe Sestak whether he would abandon his plans to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary if given an unpaid, advisory position, according to a White House counsel report issued Friday morning.
Clinton made the inquiries on behalf of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last summer, as Sestak began his challenge of Specter, a former Republican who had switched parties, White House Counsel Bob Bauer wrote. Obama publicly backed Specter's reelection bid over Sestak, who remained in the primary and defeated the veteran senator this month.
Bauer concluded that nothing improper had taken place and that "allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law." Contrary to allegations by many conservative pundits, Bauer found that Sestak had not been offered the position of secretary of the Navy. Bauer concluded that discussions about "alternatives" to a Senate campaign by Sestake were proper.
"The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House," Bauer wrote. "There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service. . . . Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements."
Sestak declined to answer questions about White House revelations involving Clinton and Emanuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
liar consults liar to tell a lie
How long before Rahmbo falls on his sword?
Yeah! It is pathetic.
What’s that game thing .... 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon or something.
What is the count for appointment of an independent counsel on this compared to so called “plamegate” and other Dem trumped up alleged Bush/Republican scandals?
“...unpaid, advisory position...”
Oh come off it, WP. If we were that stupid we’d have voted for your clown-O-dent.
Just to let y’all know....the Post had a link beneath the word “revelations” in the final sentence posted above.
That link is now gone. In it, it said that Sestak replied that he was only interested in what was good for Pennsylvanians. It’s now been replaced with this:
“I said no,” Sestak wrote, adding that “the former President said he knew I’d say that and the conversation moved on to other subjects.”
Everything these people say is a lie.
“Moves on to other subjects”... like, “You have a nice cat. Sure would hate to see something happen to her? Doesn’t your daughter play at Ft Marcy Park playground? Doesn’t your son want to get into Annapolis?......”
Dead on balls accurate description.
Rahm falling on HIS sword? I don’t think so.
asked Rep. Joe Sestak whether he would abandon his plans to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary if given an unpaid, advisory position>>>>>>>
UNPAID! Yeah right lol lol sure...... Unpaid means a nothing appointment. This version is a complete lie
We’ve got to take politics out of politics.
Just read my tagline
Maybe that was why he was crying at the Kotel.
Asked ???????????$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The Bent one does nothing for free,This also makes him a party to the crime.
Rahm won’t fall on his sword for anyone; doing so implies fortitude. In this instance he has, in all appearances, stepped on his d**k.
From Meet the Depressed ...
MR. GREGORY: All right, but you’ve campaigned on transparency. It’s part of the politics. You talked about standing up to the White House when they’d fielded a candidate–made a deal with Arlen Specter. So isn’t it in the–in the spirit of transparency, were you offered a job by the administration? And what was it?
REP. SESTAK: I learned, as I mentioned, about that personal accountability in the Navy.
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
REP. SESTAK: I felt I needed to answer that question honestly because I was personally accountable for my role in the matter.
MR. GREGORY: What’s the answer? What’s the job you were offered?
REP. SESTAK: And–but anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role, and that’s their responsibility.
MR. GREGORY: Yes or no, straightforward question. Were you, were you offered a job, and what was the job?
REP. SESTAK: I was offered a job, and I answered that.
MR. GREGORY: You said no, you wouldn’t take the job. Was it the secretary of the Navy?
REP. SESTAK: Right. And I also said, “Look, I’m getting into this…
MR. GREGORY: Was it the secretary of the Navy job?
REP. SESTAK: Anything that go–goes beyond that is others–for others to talk about.
It surely sounds as if Sestak’s admitting he was offered a job.
Sestak repeatedly said someone from “within the White House” offered him a “job”, why would he refuse for 3 months to answer further questions if this was the truth all along?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.