Quote :

"If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment. "This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime. "Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor." "In other words, an impeachable offense?" Hannity asked. "Absolutely," said Morris. The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue. "Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated. Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic." But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered. According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy. The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. "

According to the White House, there's nothing to this story. That means we probably have a good-size scandal in the making.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=158617

5/26/2010 10:41:47 PM

yeah, fabricating a war isn't an impeachable offense, but this is

5/26/2010 10:47:25 PM

Half of what you quoted was Dick Morris and Hannity blowing each other, so that tells me all I need to know.

5/26/2010 10:52:00 PM

Quote :

" "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger""

considering Hannity and Co. thought Valerie Plame was nothing, 10 times nothing is still nothing..

5/26/2010 11:09:26 PM

saw "Hannity"

threw it out the window.

5/26/2010 11:59:10 PM

lol, World Net Daily

5/27/2010 12:04:48 AM

world net daily changed their domain name?

I'm going to have to be more careful before writing people off as crackpots

5/27/2010 1:37:06 AM

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next, but isn't abandoning one job implicit in taking another?

5/27/2010 1:41:04 AM

I stopped reading after

Quote :

"on the Fox News"

Someone let me know when this shit gets to a real news outlet.

5/27/2010 10:15:09 AM

i cant tell what the problem is from the quoted text?

5/27/2010 10:22:02 AM

Quote :

""Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated. Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic." "

That's a quote from Gibbs. Obama's lawyers "looked" into it and said everything is OK. Doesn't that make a hit on anyone's BS meter?

And trashing the source is silly. National Enquirer broke the John Edwards sleaze-bag story...and it turned out to be true.

5/27/2010 10:30:12 AM

looked into what?

5/27/2010 10:33:38 AM

How is this new news?

This was in the news MONTHS ago. Sestak was bitching and moaning about it when he was trying to make traction against Specter. When it became obvious that he was going to overtake Specter he surprisingly started to shut up about it.

Seriously, what happened to put this back into the news again?

5/27/2010 10:38:40 AM

^^^^

Quote :

"The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter. "

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ^]

5/27/2010 10:41:17 AM

Quote :

"i cant tell what the problem is from the quoted text?"

You would be the last person I expect to see a problem with that

5/27/2010 10:44:04 AM

^^ ah, that makes sense then.

5/27/2010 10:49:55 AM

I dont know how they cannot appoint a special indep. prosector to investigate this.

The Plame thing turned out to not be a big deal, but they did a special prosecutor.

5/27/2010 11:38:56 AM

World Net Daily is about as reputable a news source as the National Enquirer. They might get things right 5% of the time but 95% is total garbage.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 11:57:53 AM

^5% is far too generous.

5/27/2010 12:00:50 PM

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

5/27/2010 12:02:25 PM

blind squirrels probably have pretty good sense of smell

5/27/2010 12:12:33 PM

who writes an article on what they saw on Hannity the night before?

5/27/2010 12:19:04 PM

how does a blind squirrel smell???????

5/27/2010 12:19:12 PM

lol at the mere possibility that Obama isn't a flawless saint, get real faux news

5/27/2010 12:19:20 PM

Terrible!!! dohohohoho

5/27/2010 12:19:34 PM

fuk u treetwista

5/27/2010 12:20:18 PM

mods move his post below my punchline one tia

5/27/2010 12:20:49 PM

i thought the joke was like "how does a dog with no nose smell" or something

5/27/2010 2:07:11 PM

Quote :

"Someone let me know when this shit gets to a real news outlet."

Does NPR count as a real news outlet? Cause they've been talking about it all week

5/27/2010 8:39:22 PM

I think the whitehouse would be stronger without Rahm Emanuel anyway.

5/27/2010 8:48:26 PM

Quote :

"Does NPR count as a real news outlet? Cause they've been talking about it all week"

all NPR did was report that republicans are wanting it probed

http://topics.npr.org/topic/Joe_Sestak

5/27/2010 9:04:47 PM

^ sestak's claims haven't been secret.

The "newness" of this issue is in the claim that the offer is explicitly illegal.

5/27/2010 9:11:11 PM

various reports are saying that Bill Clinton may have been the person who offered the position to Sestak. the plot thickens...

5/28/2010 10:34:49 AM

link?

5/28/2010 11:07:10 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/exclusive_white_house_asked_cl_1.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/28/2331277.aspx
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/

It's all still based on "anonymous source" at this point, but you've got three major sources saying it, including the NYT.



interestingly, this link from a CBS affiliate has the headline saying that Clinton did it, and saying that someone from the White House confirmed it. But the article itself says no such thing.
http://cbs3.com/topstories/sestak.job.offer.2.1720486.html

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2010 11:11:47 AM

POLITICO Breaking News:
-----------------------------------------------------

White House Counsel Bob Bauer confirmed that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to offer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) an unpaid, executive branch advisory board position to “avoid a divisive Senate primary,” Bauer denied Sestak was offered a nomination as Navy secretary, and said all discussions were “consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

5/28/2010 11:56:48 AM

"Yo Bill, I'm really busy meeting with the Duke basketball team and such, you think you handle this for me? I mean I don't even have time to find out if Liz Birnbaum resigned or was fired. Thx, I'll kiss your ass later"

[Edited on May 28, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : Liz]

5/28/2010 1:57:31 PM

hahaha. Gov. Ed Rendell just effectively said "hey, people do this shit all the time. why are people upset about it?" Umm, maybe because it's fucking ILLEGAL, ed. Really? Your defense is "people do illegal shit all the time..."?

I thought Obama was gonna be "different." So much for the CHANGE we could BELIEVE in.

5/30/2010 2:15:18 PM

Quote :

"“What these statutes say is you cannot promise somebody a future job in the government for political favors,” said Hans von Spakovsky, an election law expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation whose analysis has been cited by Issa. Other disagreed. “I don’t recall there being any federal statute that prohibits somebody from offering a job in exchange for political support,” said Jan Baran, a top GOP election lawyer who has worked for the Republican National Committee. “Not everything that’s bad form is illegal.” As for the laws Issa cited, none is relevant to Sestak’s situation, Baran said. “I don’t think they’ve ever been applied in this context,” he said. “In fact, they may not have ever been enforced at all.” "

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/24/gop-takes-aim-at-sestak/

5/30/2010 2:21:36 PM

sorry. but people have fucking quoted the exact law, U.S.C number and all.

5/30/2010 2:23:21 PM

From what i've seen, there is plenty of wiggle room in the laws that could technically make this not illegal. Forgive me if i don't swallow the analysis of Heritage Foundation blindly, like you appear to be doing.

As the top GOP election lawyer said "not everything that’s bad form is illegal."

5/30/2010 3:11:20 PM

This thread made me think me of a deal made by the Bartlett Administration in the second episode of The West Wing.

Quote :

"MANDY Lloyd, what? Why? Why did you go to breakfast to make that deal? STAFFER 1 They offered us a good spot at the nominating convention. MANDY Excuse me? RUSSELL That’s true. I might nominate the President. STAFFER 2 Possibly keynote. RUSSELL Definitely something in primetime. MANDY Of course, they offered you something good at the nominating convention. They don’t want you to get nominated at the nominating convention!"

5/30/2010 3:21:35 PM

what part of "you can't offer someone a nomination to a political position in exchange for a political act during a primary" do you think wasn't violated? I'm curious.

would you like to see the fucking law, itself?

Quote :

"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."

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

So, is dropping out of a race not a "political activity?" Is a nomination not a "promise of position?" Or was the primary not a "primary election?"

If dubya had done anything even remotely similar, you guys would have been all over him. As would I. have some fucking intellectual honesty and admit that this was illegal and that Obama should man up and at least fire whoever the fuck is responsible.



Seriously, it took me like five clicks on google to find the relevant law. And you are gonna hide behind "but a Bush guy said he couldn't remember a law...". Really? A BUSH OFFICIAL? When was the last fucking time YOU trusted anything a Bush official said.

5/30/2010 3:56:52 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, it took me like five clicks on google to find the relevant law. And you are gonna hide behind "but a Bush guy said he couldn't remember a law...". Really? A BUSH OFFICIAL? When was the last fucking time YOU trusted anything a Bush official said. "

lols

There are plenty of non Bush officials saying the same thing. I just figured you'd be able to relate better to a Bush official.

And if you'd read the non-bolded parts of your quote, you'd realize that it's not as cut and dry as your best friends at World Net Daily want you to think.

5/30/2010 4:36:21 PM

really? the law I quoted came from WorldNetDaily?

allow me to ask you again:

Quote :

"So, is dropping out of a race not a "political activity?" Is a nomination not a "promise of position?" Or was the primary not a "primary election?""

the rest of the law is all "OR". not "AND". in other words, moron, it need only fit the bolded parts to be applicable. are you THAT much of a partisan hack that you can't admit that 2+2=4? really. what part of the law did I leave out that exonerates the Obama administration. please, show me.

5/30/2010 4:41:50 PM

was the position made possible in part or whole by an act of congress?

And in the context of the law, it seems like "political activity" would NOT include asking the candidate directly to not run for a seat, when you consider the rest of the sentence is talking about offering support or opposition for a particular candidate.

It seems the spirit of the law is more to stop a wealthy person from supporting or attacking a candidate in exchange for being offered government contracts or positions.

Not in dealing with asking a candidate in a political position not to run for a race so that he can maintain the existing political position.

Of course, it's really up to a court how they choose to interpret whether this would be a "political activity" under the scope and intent of the law, since it's not really clear in this situation.

My prediction is that there is going to be an investigation, no wrong doing will be found, the republicans will be content with the temporary negative atmosphere they've created surrounding the Obama administration, and the rest of the world will continue their lives as they shrugged this off a week ago because it has no real impact, like the Plame outing had, or the political firing of attorneys had under the previous administration.

If this has the effect of excising Rahm Emanuel though from the admin, i'd be pleased overall, because i've been saying for months now that he's poisoning the Obama administration.

But how anyone can believe this is little more than grasping at straws is beyond me.

[Edited on May 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2010 4:57:17 PM

Quote :

"was the position made possible in part or whole by an act of congress?"

bull fucking shit and you KNOW it. that is in reference to the "benefit", as proven by the fact that the word "benefit" follows that clause. I figured you would engage in mental masturbation.

Quote :

"And in the context of the law, it seems like "political activity" would NOT include asking the candidate directly to not run for a seat, when you consider the rest of the sentence is talking about offering support or opposition for a particular candidate. "

REALLY? dropping out of a race is NOT a political activity? really... REALLY? really... come on dude, you are reaching and you know it. this is bordering on "It all depends on your definition of the word 'is'" territory

5/30/2010 5:10:10 PM

Quote :

"I thought Obama was gonna be "different." So much for the CHANGE we could BELIEVE in. "

your just now getting this?

behind the curve a little

5/30/2010 5:11:45 PM

Quote :

" Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, [OR]position, [OR]compensation, [OR]contract, [OR]OR 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, [OR]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. "

that is how the law reads, dude. but really, dropping out of a race isn't a "political activity," nor is it in "support of" the other candidates? REALLY? and you accuse ME of "grasping at straws." I mean really. You are suggesting that the law first mentions a benefit, then provides a clause referencing everything including the benefit, then goes back to reference the benefit specifically by name? come on...


Ultimately, you are right in what will happen. This will be whitewashed by the administration, because the media won't fucking tell the truth about it, much less report on it. You are delusional, though, if you think Rahm Emmanuel went out promising a post as high as Secretary of the fucking Navy without first consulting Obama. (you know, the guy who is makes the fucking appointment, and all) But, I don't think they'll be able to prove that Obama knew or endorsed it.

5/30/2010 5:22:33 PM

armchair lawyer ITT

5/30/2010 9:51:02 PM