Sestak White House scandal called 'impeachable offense'

Although I am not a fan of the current administration, I think this is just politics with nothing to write home about.

Originally posted by Portugoal
Why is it non-sense? It could very well be Obama's Watergate.

It's nonsense because nothing will come of it.

It's delusional to think this parallels watergate.

reply to post by Portugoal


Interesting story but can you site some better sources?

Many folks on ATS don't take heed to World Net Daily. They have kinda have had a bad journalistic reputation in the past.

Originally posted by Wayne60
Although I am not a fan of the current administration, I think this is just politics with nothing to write home about.

If this is true, and Obama know about a crime and let it happen willingly then this being "Just Politics" and people ignore impeachable offenses then this is not the America I grew up in.

My take..

If the Candidate is lying. There needs to be an investigation.

If he is not lying.. There needs to be an investigation.

Someone is withholding the truth, and I would think that the PA voters would like to know if their Senate candidate is telling the truth.

I am pretty sure that the US voters would like to feel that our President and his appointees are above board as well.

Impeachable offense or not, it is a serious allegation if true.

The citizens deserve the truth?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Impeachable offense or not, it is a serious allegation if true.

I'm sure they had conversations, it's got to be true, no way Sestak would make the whole thing up. But I doubt the law was broken.

Congressman Sestak, with your long service, you would make an excellent Secretary of the Navy. If you should decide to drop out of the Senate Race for personal reasons, rest assured you would be at the top of our list for hiring consideration.

reply to post by Schaden


Sounds plausible

My suspicions would be that this most likely was done without the President's knowledge.. sounds more of a Rahm maneuver in my book. Pure speculation on my part, and maybe wishful thinking, but I actually think that it would be of great service to the Administration, should he somehow have to resign and go back to Chicago.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I really wish I could agree, but with as much as has been posted on this forum and with all of the things we have all heard about over the years, politicians are politicians.

Just a few of the more recent news, and I am not saying I agree with their tactics, nor whether they are legal or not. My point is that backroom deals are made by politicians all the time whether it is to pass pending legislation, or in job offers or some other kind of support for something. The old "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."


Cash For Cloture: The Backroom Deals That Got The Health Care Bill Through

Tim Bridgewater, U.S. Senate Candidate, Attempted Backroom Campaign Deal to Pay Cherilyn Eagar’s Debt

Kelly Ayotte Backroom Meeting With Lobbyists Tonight

Payoffs for States Get Harry Reid 60 Votes

Sleazy backroom deals on Obamacare

Also, surely there was something offered to Hillary Clinton for her endorsement of Obama...Oh yeah, Secretary of State.

Were any laws violated with this current issue? I would have to say it would depend upon how the offer was worded to Sestak.

Just remember the media/Democrat outrage over Bush's firing of the attorneys and Bush had every right to do so. Yet, over and over again we see the media turn a blind eye to Obama's indiscretions. Where is the outrage? Once again, we're seeing a completely inconsistent reaction to Obama's response, compared to the way Bush was treated. Are you all starting to see how utterly manipulated you all were and continue to be?

I'm convinced that there's more to this than we know. But I'm not sure it's criminal behavior, even if it did happen. This article explores several possibilities.

TIME

If it's true that the White House offered Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak a job to try to clear the Democratic Senate primary for incumbent Arlen Specter, that's disturbing.

But not because anyone is "participating in the cover-up of a possible crime." This doesn't sound like a "potentially devastating accusation of political corruption," much less an "impeachable offense," no matter what nonsense Michael Steele or Sean Hannity are peddling. Republicans may be calling for a special prosecutor, and even Democratic Senator Dick Durbin wants to know what happened. But it's called politics, and it's not uncommon. News flash: Sometimes the politics of political appointments and political races can get political.

reply to post by Rowsdowerr


That's because, even if this did happen, it's something that is done in politics all the time and Republicans can't even manage to appear serious as they feign outrage because they've done it and SO much worse so many times.

Bush's chief ethics officer has this to say about it:

"Congress gives us plenty of genuine ethics concerns to worry about – particularly the role of campaign contributions which are de facto “bribes” (watch carefully what happens to the banking reform bill when it goes to House-Senate conference). Voters should not be distracted by media generated sideshows having little to do with what goes on in Washington".
...
If the White House had offered Sestak a job so that he would vote a certain way on a bill, or to buy his silence about an illegal or unethical act, this would have legs. But it’s nothing like that, and Washington Republicans know it.

Source

I'm not defending corruption, but the outrage over this (if it even happened) is like trying to put a teen in jail for stealing a piece of gum.

And Sestak is obligated to tell the whole story. If he's going to make the accusation, he should be telling us exactly WHAT was said and by whom, when. I don't understand this game of cat and mouse he's playing... Like I said, I think there's more to the story.


[edit on 5/27/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Rowsdowerr


Amen brother!

This Sestak guy is lying. That's my opinion.

The first time he "let the cat out of the bag" about this alleged job offer was on FEB 18th! Why are we talking about this NOW??? Does anyone even wonder why this is being brought out into the news as a possible impeachment case 3 and a half months LATER???

He made this claim on TV on Feb 18, 19, March 10th and again on May 23rd. Why NOW? Why not when he first announced it? And for the love of God, why isn't Sestak willing to say more about it?

Besides, Sestak supported Obama MUCH more than Specter did. I think he's lying.

Source

Any bets on whether he gets Clintoned. Is there a chance he could wind up the unfortunate victim of suicide? It wouldn't surprise me in the least. Anywho, the teflon Pres will walk away from this like has everything else.

I think it's likely that member Centurion may have inadvertently stumbled upon on what actually happened! It's VERY possible that Obama offered Sestak the Sec. of the Navy position (or some other job) in June of last year, and then said, "Unfortunately, you won't be able to continue with your run for the Senate if you accept the position."

And Sestak turned it around in his head to be a job offer to give up his run! No wonder he doesn't want to speak further about it!

And yes, adifferentbreed, if by some insane, outside chance, Obama gets impeached for this, he won't lose his job. This is just some Republicans hoping against hope for their next reason to get rid of him. The birth certificate thing didn't work. Nothing has worked. They're desperate.

Thread notice.

Let's focus this discussion on the topic and not each other.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This Sestak guy is lying. That's my opinion.

BH, I know these pills are getting harder to swallow, but if Sleestak is lying then why doesn't Gibbs just come out and call him a liar?

...I'll tell you why, because he is not lying.
There were indeed some conversations that did occur but according to Gibbs "are not problematic".

Translation, complete opposite, this could actually mean that it may very well be extremely problematic for all parties involved.

reply to post by Alxandro


That's actually a really good point.

Originally posted by Alxandro
BH, I know these pills are getting harder to swallow, but if Sleestak is lying then why doesn't Gibbs just come out and call him a liar?

Not hard to swallow at all. As to why Gibbs doesn't call a Democratic Senator a liar, I think that's pretty clear. Why would he? Gibbs knows he has nothing to worry about. Everything was on the up and up.

There were indeed some conversations that did occur but according to Gibbs "are not problematic".

Exactly. There was probably a job offer and a mention that the senatorial run would have to be set aside... which is very true. Nothing problematic.

Look, you may be right, but this feels more like grasping at straws to me. Especially since Sestak is so closed-mouthed about it.