The White House Memo on Sestak

Would the non-Flox media kindly tell us which laws are supposedly being broken?

Is this Obama’s US Attorney gate?

IMPEACH NOW!!!1!

What I find fascinating is the careful orchestration of leaks designed to caress the press coverage in the WH’s desired direction.
.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/what_about_the_job_offer.html
.
of course now it’s up to Sestak to put up or shut up…….

“There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations – both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals…”
.
Change we can believe in.

I think it’s Obama’s Travelgate. Or maybe his Filegate. Or maybe it’s his LAXHaircutgate.
.
So many deep, important scandals to compare this serious crime to.

It is fitting that Bill Clinton is tied to this faux scandal since his administration was notorious for acting defensively in the face of baseless accusations by the Republicans. The Obama administration is following a similarly foolish method of response.

The ‘unpaid position’ defense actually seems too cute by half. It almost invites disbelief.

Stuart, as you are well aware, I completely agree that Obama was not being honest when he pledged to change the game and not merely play it better. That said, please do not humor these fools by suggesting that there was anything improper even being alleged.
.
This “scandal” is so far beyond stupid that I can barely stand it. What is the principle that the Republicans are articulating? That political parties should not make decisions in the best interest of the party? That political party members cannot be rewarded for furthering the party’s agenda with political appointments? Are these people serious about this?

I’m very disappointed that we didn’t have a locker room towel-snapping scene between Rahm and Sestak with Bubba watching. But I’m sure that will come out during the Impeachment hearings.

“I smoked it, but I didn’t inhale.”
.
“I offered him a position, but refused to pay him.”

Leave it to Digby to use a view from a slightly different angle to shine a bright light on the scene:
.
Note the passive voice. The press had nothing to do with this. It magically became a “regular fixture on cable news.” (And don’t forget the White House press corps is very, very unhappy about not being treated to Dove bars and back massages.)

It’s now officially morphed into how the White House “mishandled” it, which will turn into finger pointing at Sestak for his “exaggerating,” which will be a mark of his bad character. This is the way that the Village keeps politicians in line, let’s them know who’s in charge. And as I wrote earlier, the triviality is the point. To be able to make the White House sweat over something this stupid is an exercise of power.
.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/vernon-jordan-in-library-with-candle.html

sqr1:
.
You’re right, I should be cautious of “Fools for Scandal” traps.
.
Thank you.

…although we should also remember this, too: link to my commentary in a previous thread regarding liberals defending the incumbency racket

You’re being channeled, sqr1:

@ggreenwald
.
The media fixates on trivial “scandals” while ignoring major ones because the former are easier for them to understand and way more fun
.
1 minute ago via web
.
Retweeted by you and 1 other

“The media fixates on trivial “scandals”
.
Actually it depends on whom is involved in the trivial scandal. They certainly do not fixate when it involves someone they respect and admire.

Whether the quid-pro-quo, (look it up, it is a felony charge) came from a former President via the President’s men (Rahm Emanuel), does not excuse the offense.
.
This is clearly a quid-pro-quo incident.
.

The term quid pro quo is also used in the contexts of politics and Sexual Harassment. In politics quid quo pro can refer to the use of political office for personal benefit. For instance, an elected official might promise favorable governmental treatment to a person in exchange for something of value. This form of quid pro quo would be a violation of the law. On the federal level, the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 [1994]) makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act.

.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/quid+pro+quo
.
Yes indeed, “Change we can believe in”, my A$$.
.
Do these nimrods we have in the White House actually believe they can get away with this? Hello Richard Nixon, you are about to get company.

Maybe Sestak should moved next door to the White House and Obama should get a facebook page.

So from the blockquoted text — are you alleging that Sestak was promised sexual favors, property, or campaign contributions?

“Do these nimrods we have in the White House actually believe they can get away with this? Hello Richard Nixon, you are about to get company.”
.
The problem is there is no offense. I know you and the what passes for our press and media seriously are hoping that there is. The press already knows better but just as in the past they are pretending they don’t, but it just isn’t there. Channeling Nixon and taking a hyper-partisan view of everything as you always do are not going to change this.

in a related story, the WH began offering bridges for sale . . . .

He smells blood

Let me break it down a little more simply for you kevin. You seem to never get the facts when laid directly in front of you.
.

For instance, an elected official might promise favorable governmental treatment to a person in exchange for something of value

.
Now I know you believe the White House memo as though it were a commandment from God Almighty himself, but we may want to set up a special prosecutor to find out the real truth of the matter. .
.
Is Fitzgerald busy? Perhaps Mr Sestak, Clinton, and Emanuel would like to be a little more clear on what exactly was “promised” as Sestak has claimed.
.
Sestak has claimed and I will quote “I was offered a job”. Period. A job indicates some type of compensation. Compensation in this situation is “something of value”. Get it?

It seems that Rusty — and possible Rusty alter ego Earl in the previous thread — both believe Obama is going down because he has somehow violated his “change we can believe in” slogan here.
.
First of all, you might like to know that a campaign slogan is not, in fact, legally binding. But hey, good luck getting Obama impeached for violating the spirit of a motto.
.
Second, those of us who voted for Obama — and I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include either of you — we were the ones who were looking for change, and guess what? We just don’t care about this.
.
This is routine politics. Not dirty politics, not underhanded politics, but the routine politics of moving individuals around on the chessboard of positions in order to get the best possible advantage for your party overall.
.
Yawn.

And what’s the value of a non-salaried advisory role?

Steve Benen (as usual) has a good take on this:
.

When the Reagan White House offered Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R) a job in 1981 in the hopes of convincing him to drop out of the Republican Senate primary race in California, no one cared. When George W. Bush’s White House approached Rep. Ben Gilman (R-N.Y.) about a job in the hopes of convincing him not to run for re-election, no one cared. Mundane political efforts like these fail to raise an eyebrow because they’re the very definition of routine. As Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush’s White House political director, said this week, “Tell me a White House that didn’t do this, back to George Washington.”
.
In this case, it’s even thinner, since Sestak wasn’t even offered a job, but rather an unpaid advisory position, which a) wasn’t particularly enticing; and b) was quickly dismissed anyway.
.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, told Greg Sargent that this couldn’t constitute bribery. “Beyond that, Sloan adds, the Federal bribery statute requires an offer of something of value in exchange for an official act. Sloan says that not running for Senate would not constitute an official act in any case, even if a paid position were offered in return for dropping a run for office.”

.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/024016.php

This looks like it could be a bigger scandal than including a public option in the health bill. On the bright side, it takes the attention off the disaster in the Gulf.

How many other “liberals” did they try to prevent from running for office?

I assume that your use of “liberals” indicates that you know that Sestak is not exactly a liberal, yes?

In their breathless attempt to make this into a scandal worthy of their coverage, the White House media seems to be forgetting something. Whatever it is that the Obama administration tried to do with Joe Sestak, isn’t it the same thing they did when they offered Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State? Wouldn’t that have been even worse, because he was eliminating one of his main rivals for re-election by bringing her into his Cabinet?

Isn’t it basically the same thing he did when he made Gov. Huntsman of Utah Ambassador to China? Huntsman has presidential ambitions on the GOP side; hard to run against the guy who made you an ambassador, isn’t it? One less challenger to worry about in 2012…

Whenever he names a Republican to a bipartisan commission, isn’t he doing in essence the same thing? That is, if you apply logic to this whole mess. But what’s logic got to do with political media coverage these days?

Besides, the President’s got real problems. He hasn’t gotten into the White House submarine, dived to the bottom of the Gulf, climbed out and stuffed up that leaking pipe with his bare hands. George Bush would’ve done that…

“In politics quid quo pro can refer to the use of political office for personal benefit.”
.
So, by the wingnut’s interpretation of the statute, any time any government official offers another government official a job a felony is being commuted.
.
This is absurd on its face.
.
Of course, this is the same guy who defended Bush’s repeated violations of law by insisting that the executive branch has ‘unitary executive powers’ (which don’t actually exist). I guess part of the ‘unitary executive’ theory is that it only applies to republicans.

“I assume that your use of “liberals” indicates that you know that Sestak is not exactly a liberal, yes?”
.
Correct, although he was supported by a variety of liberal groups.

I hope you are being sarcastic. This is hardly a story, let alone a “scandal”. I can’t figure out why it’s getting attention. John King was practically frothing the other night over it and all I could think was, “Way to go rabid over non-stories”.

Sestak looks like a blue-dog in waiting to me.

John King is happy because this is the kind of story you don’t have to think too hard about, and you can ride it for months, if the path leads to impeachment.
.
Don’t you think impeachment would be a winning issue for the right in 2012?

Fellow commenters (except Rusty) don’t give this guff oxygen. Every administration has involved itself with candidate selection in some form. Our disgruntled WHPC is looking for a story as is Politico and Andrea Greenspan. Also Morning Joke.

Darrell Essa can be relied upon to come up with a charge even if someone accidentally pisses on him.

I have to ask: do the Swampland team think that Palin, a job for Sestak and other trivia is more compelling than the fact that Congress approved billions for the War in Afghanistan but nothing for our jobless. Not a subject worth discussing? Have these guy really spent any time looking at the MMS scandal these past four years?

So not the change I voted for.

“IMPEACH NOW!!!1!”
.
No. Have patience. This has to be done with finesse.
.
First you spend several years publishing every wild accusation that Alfonse D’Amato can dream up on page one. What you don’t publish (or grudgingly mention on page 17) is every time the accusations turn out to be proven false. Then you impeach.

Sorry: no.

Just saw that Congress has voted an extension of funds for the jobless but not for other stuff. While helpful this kind of extension is going to be harder to fund as the months go by.

I’m familiar with “ohiolib” posting here, but what’s with the extra “b”?

“I didn’t have sex with that woman”.
.
In 1998 Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum on the premise that bin Laden was manufacturing chemicals to be used in “warfare”.Clinton was on bin Laden’s tail in Afghanistan at this time as well.
.
What happened next?
.
Clinton’s own version of “Wag the Dog” with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
.
Clinton may very well have been on the right track regarding the hunt for bin Laden in 1998, the 9/11 Commission felt it was important enough to investigate.
.
Did the media have any complicity in throwing the American public off track? Are they at least accomplices in what is going on now with this “Sestak controversy”? Amongst a few other “controversies”. I think yes?
.
Digby states: “To be able to make the White House sweat over something this stupid is an exercise in power”.
.
I would take this one step further and add this is an exercise in the “abuse of power”.
.
Which brings me to a question I’m not sure is relevant here, but I’m going to ask anyway:
.
Did many liberals evolve into Centrists as a way to appease the powerful press? In what way can we be more effective in holding the press, politicians, and multi-national companies more accountable to the citizens of this great country and the rest of the world? There is a tremendous amount of anger amongst US citizens that, if harnessed, has the potential to pull us away from this precipice the whole of our citizens (well, except for the very few, very rich) are dangling from.
.
I would like to see more “grassroot” organizing amongst liberals/progressives because very few of the citizenry are either: A) not happy with the current Centrists or, are B) unfortunately, perfectly happy to be fed bullsh!t by the media entertainers whose basic premise is “the masses are a$$es” and thus get away with advancing their OWN interests creating fear-mongering and xenophobia and that is NOT what the Constitution of the United States of America was meant to be built upon.

oop, very many—(not very few) of the citizenry are either…

I was unable to log in for several days, then I could log in, but my posts never showed up. So I made another name.

So the extra “b” is for “backup”

I suppose you could say that

NewRusty: I know it is too late to impeach Reagan but would you agree when he had Ed Rollins ask S.I. Hayakawa to not run for the US Senate from California and offered him a job that was impeachable?
.
I think NewRusty that you would have to impeach almost every President for the same offense.
.
Do you remember how all the bogus investigations and the Clinton impeachment drove the Reps right into the dumper? Please repeat your overreaching again. I want to see Reps hypocrites that have to resign because of their being caught in the behavior they are accusing the President of. I want them to make fools of themselves again.

I have always found Spector to be a phoney that only looks out for Spector. However, Sestak is no liberal. That isn’t why they wanted him out. They made a deal with Spector and still needed his votes on some issues.
Plus, in the beginning, they thought Spector had a better chance of keep the seat in Dem hands. It is called politics.

http://www.abercrombiehot.com
http://www.abercrombiecity.com
http://www.afandhco.com
http://www.afandhco.com