White House Spokesman Has No Answer on Sestak Job Offer; Ummm..Ummm... I Dunno

Dig Gibbs!! Dig!!! This is just getting comical as Gibbs tries to dig himself out of a sand pit.

On Tuesday, pressed by CNSNews.com for more information about the White House job offer to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to go beyond what was said in a brief White House memo released on Friday.

After almost three months of insisting that "nothing inappropriate" happened, the White House on Friday -- just before the start of the long holiday weekend -- issued a two-page memo discussing "the suggestion that government positions may have been improperly offered" to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to "dissuade him" from running against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

The memo, written by White House Counsel Bob Bauer, said there was no “impropriety” and that the administration’s actions were “fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

But the memo is raising more questions, which the White House could not or would not answer on Tuesday.

It appears that Sestak could not have served on a presidential advisory board while retaining his seat in Congress. But according to Bauer's memo, that’s exactly what the White House proposed.

Transcript of Gibbs' conundrum. Ummm Ummm

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER PETER BAKER: Can I ask on a different topic then? On Friday, after our last chance with you last week, we received this memo from Bob Bauer on the Sestak matter. In three months -- this is the response after three months of questions. I’m just wondering, if it’s not a big deal, as you guys are saying, then why did we wait for three months to answer that question?

MR. GIBBS: I’d have to ask Counsel for a better answer on that. I don’t know the answer.

NYT BAKER: Don’t you have something to do with that as the chief spokesman for the White House? You were asked on a number of occasions and don’t you think that that kind of created --

MR. GIBBS: If I bear some responsibility for that, I can understand that.

(Later in the briefing)

CNSNEWS.COM: Thanks, Robert. Just a couple of quick things on the Sestak thing again. The counsel’s memo on Friday said that efforts were made in June and July of 2009. Were there multiple efforts and were all those made by President Clinton?

MR. GIBBS: Whatever is in the memo is accurate.

CNSNEWS.COM: Okay, but I mean, with regards to June and July, I mean, were all those President Clinton or --

MR. GIBBS: I think the relationship on how that happened, yes, is explained in the memo.

NYT BAKER: Joe Sestak said he had one conversation with President Clinton.

MR. GIBBS: Let me check.

CNSNEWS.COM: And just one more. As far as -- it said this is an unpaid position. Does that make a difference in the view of the White House, that it would be an unpaid position as opposed to a paid position?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals. The situation was an unpaid position and didn’t constitute a lot of what you’re hearing.

CNSNEWS.COM: Okay, and just one more -- sorry. But the [Presidential] Intelligence Advisory Board, which most reports said this offer was for, that would be a position a member of the House could not serve on. Is that --

MR. GIBBS: That’s how I understand the way the PIAB is written.

CNSNEWS.COM: But the memo, it said that this would be a position to serve in the House and serve on a presidential advisory board.

MR. GIBBS: Correct.

CNSNEWS.COM : Well, how could he sit on the board?
FOX NEWS REPORTER MAJOR GARRETT : Yes, how would that work?

MR. GIBBS: He couldn’t.

NYT BAKER: So why was your offer --
CNSNEWS.COM So that wasn’t the offer, then?

MR. GIBBS: I’d refer you to --

CNSNEWS.COM What position, what board, was it then? Do you know?

MR. GIBBS: I’d refer you to the memo.

CNSNEWS.COM: But the memo didn’t specify.

MR. GIBBS: Right.

www.cnsnews.com...

I smell a quick cover up and Clinton is being used as the tarp. I wonder what he or his wife stand to gain in this mess. If these questions were so cut and dry why did it take so long to answer them??

Gotta get the story right!! The recently released memo has only served to raise more questions than it has answered.

I'm having flashbacks to the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and all of the job offers that she so conveniently received via Vernon Jordan.

Let's hope the FBI follows through with a proper investigation.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 2-6-2010 by jibeho]

Meanwhile, Matt Ortega, on Twitter, has unearthed an Associated Press story from 1981. Here's the first paragraph:

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.

Hayakawa, who was seeking a second term at the time, was being urged by GOP officials to withdraw from the 1982 primary, a race that included, among others, Reps. Barry Goldwater Jr. & Bob Dornan, San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson, and First Daughter Maureen Reagan. The last thing the White House wanted was a split-conservative field that would end in the nomination of Rep. Pete McCloskey, a longtime anathema to the Right.

Hayakawa ultimately decided not to run for re-election. Wilson won the primary and was elected in November.

twitpic.com...

It's deploarble, but not illegal. That seems to be the opinion of legal minds both Dem and GOP.

I see the call for an FBI investigation as political posturing and disingenuos. If this type of political deal making is declared illegal...and I think it should be...then there are a world of both GOP and Dems representitives that will panic.

I think the public would be best served to use this as an impetus to get proper laws on the books to address this kind of political horsetrading, but trying to apply the current laws to this instance is a lost cause...again according to legal counsel on both sides of the isle. I can provide links if you need them.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


Actually it is illegal.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600:
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

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.

Link

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Actually it is illegal.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600:
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
Link

Law prof Hasen slams Fox's "breathless" Sestak coverage, dismantles criminality arguments

Loyola law professor Richard Hasen commented, "The coverage that I've seen on your network sounds pretty breathless. It seems to me that this is really much ado about nothing."

Hasen: "I can't find a case" where statute "has ever been applied in this way." Discussing 18 U.S.C. § 600, Hasen stated:

HASEN: I went back and looked at this Section 600, the one that says about these job offers. That seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments. That is, you know, giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money. I can't find a case where it's ever been applied in this way, and I think there are some good reasons why it probably shouldn't be. What we have here, really, is a political deal. It's a deal to say in order to strengthen the party, one of the two people competing should step aside. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and it's the kind of thing that probably is not what the statute was really designed to prevent.

mediamatters.org...

Former Bush AG Mukasey: Calling Sestak allegations a crime "really is a stretch." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' America Live, former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that it is "highly questionable there was a crime," adding that positions covered under 18 U.S.C. § 600 have to be "made possible, in whole or in part, by an act of Congress. In other words, it has to be a position that was created by an act of Congress or somehow partially created by an act of Congress

mediamatters.org...

Former Justice Department senior attorney Cooper: Allegations don't "sound to me as the sort of thing that any reasonable prosecutor would view as criminal."

mediamatters.org...

Bush political director Kaufman: "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington."
mediamatters.org...

Historian Russell Riley: "It is completely unexceptional." On May 27, The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported, "As the Republican Party works itself into a lather over the Obama administration's offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) in exchange for him not entering the Pennsylvania Senate primary, seasoned political observers, historians, and lawyers are responding with veritable yawns."

Historian George Edwards: "All this is old news historically." Stein further reported, "George Edwards, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies at Texas A&M University, says: 'There is no question whatsoever that presidents have often offered people positions to encourage them not to do something or make it awkward for them to do it. Presidents have also offered people back-ups if they ran for an office and lost. All this is old news historically.' "

Ethics attorney Stan Brand: "Crime" charge is "far-fetched" and has "no legal substance."


Etc. Etc. Etc.

I don't like it, but not illegal...

It wasn't a law when George Washington was president. It became law in 1971 so that point is moot.

Listen,... read the law. It says what it says and any 10 year old can understand it. The whitehouse broke the law. Quoting a bunch of talking heads saying this and that and making phony excuses doesn't make the law go away. They broke the law plain and simple.

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600:
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

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

Link

An appointment to a non-paying presidential advisory board is not a position or benefit created by congress.

Originally posted by METACOMET
Listen,... read the law. It says what it says and any 10 year old can understand it. The whitehouse broke the law. Quoting a bunch of talking heads saying this and that and making phony excuses doesn't make the law go away. They broke the law plain and simple.

The talking head was the election law expert Faux had on to bolster their argument that something shady happenened and he blew their argument and this thread out of the water.

This is a non-issue to anyone but the bama hating right wing, who seriously think Obama should be impeached over this. It's a tremendous waste of time.

Originally posted by maybereal11

18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code - Section 600:
Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

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

Link

An appointment to a non-paying presidential advisory board is not a position or benefit created by congress.

So ...

Despite your assertions in this thread that you "choose not to support obama", here you go again.

And before you even go there, it will be very difficult to find anyone that thinks that "defending" and "supporting" are not two sides of the same coin.

Deny hypocrisy.

reply to post by jibeho


Good one. S&F just for pointing out how freaking stupid Gibbs is. I can't believe the MSM and other reporters aren't ripping into him. Be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Just another fine example of the current administartion. Which, you can check out what Biden the Clown is spewing today on my thread-it's on the main board-I think-if you're interested.

Only a few more months.

Originally posted by centurion1211
So ...

Despite your assertions in this thread that you "choose not to support obama", here you go again.

And from my post on this very page..

Originally posted by maybereal11

It's deploarble, but not illegal. ...

I see the call for an FBI investigation as political posturing and disingenuos. If this type of political deal making is declared illegal...and I think it should be...
[edit on 3-6-2010 by maybereal11]

You are an idiot...not a personal attack just an observation.

What I said on the other thread still holds true concerning you..

You are still confused. I do not choose to support President Obama, but rather have a natural instinct to call people like yourself on thier BS when they spout nonsense they can't back up.




[edit on 4-6-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-6-2010 by maybereal11]