The Cellar - White House caught in a Bribe?

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - White House caught in a Bribe? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=22816)

White House caught in a Bribe?

Quote:

After three months of zipped lips and feigned ignorance, the Obama White House is finally taking real heat over Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak’s consistent claims that the administration offered him a job to drop his Senate bid. Now it’s time to redirect the spotlight where it belongs: on the top counsel behind the Washington stonewall, Bob “The Silencer” Bauer.

On Sunday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs glibly asserted that “lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And nothing inappropriate happened.” With whom were these conversations had? Gibbs won’t say. Neither will Attorney General Eric Holder, who dismissed “hypotheticals” when questioned about Sestak’s allegations last week on Capitol Hill by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa of California. Holder is simply taking his cue from the commander-in-chief’s personal lawyer and Democratic Party legal boss.

You see, on March 10, Issa also sent a letter to Bauer, the White House counsel to the president, requesting specifics: Did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel contact Sestak? Did White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina (whom another Democrat, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, has accused of offering a cabinet position in exchange for his withdrawal)? How about the White House Office of Political Affairs? Any other individuals? What position(s) was/were offered in exchange for Sestak’s withdrawal? And what, if any, steps did Bauer take to investigate possible criminal activity?

Bauer’s answers? Zip. Nada. Zilch. While the veteran attorney ducked under a table with the president, Gibbs stalled publicly as long as he could — deferring inquiries about the allegations one week by claiming he had been “on the road” and had “not had a chance to delve into this,” and then admitting the next week that he had “not made any progress on that,” refusing the week after that to deny or admit the scheme, and then urging reporters to drop it because “whatever happened is in the past.”

But the laws governing such public corruption are still on the books. And unlike Gibbs, the U.S. code governing bribery, graft and conflicts of interest is rather straightforward: “Whoever solicits or receives … any … thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

Quote:

Bauer is intimately familiar with electoral law, Barack Obama, ethics violations and government job-trading allegations. And he’s an old hand at keeping critics and inquisitors at bay.

A partner at the prestigious law firm Perkins Coie, Bauer served as counsel to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Obama for America. He also served as legal counsel to the George Soros-funded 527 organization America Coming Together during the 2004 campaign. That get-out-the-vote outfit, helmed by Patrick Gaspard (the former Service Employees International Union heavy turned Obama domestic policy chief), employed convicted felons as canvassers and committed campaign finance violations that led to a $775,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission under Bauer’s watch.

As I’ve reported previously, it was Bauer who lobbied the Justice Department unsuccessfully in 2008 to pursue a criminal probe of American Issues Project (AIP), an independent group that sought to run an ad spotlighting Obama’s ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. It was Bauer who attempted to sic the Justice Department on AIP funder Harold Simmons and who sought his prosecution for funding the ad. And it was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country to compel them to pull the spot. All on Obama’s behalf.

More significantly, Bauer has served as Obama’s personal attorney, navigating the corrupted waters of former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pay-for-play scandals in Illinois. Bauer accompanied Obama to an interview with federal investigators in Chicago. And he’s got his hands full fighting Blago’s motion to subpoena Obama in the Senate-seat-for-sale trial — a subpoena that included references to a secret phone call between Obama and Blagojevich; an allegation that Emanuel floated his own suggested replacement for Obama’s seat; an allegation that Obama told a “certain labor union official” that he would support (now-White House senior adviser) Valerie Jarrett to fill his old seat; and a bombshell allegation that Obama might have lied about conversations with convicted briber and fraudster Tony Rezko.

With not one, not two, but three Democrats (Sestak, Romanoff and Blagojevich) all implicating the agent of Hope and Change in dirty backroom schemes, “Trust Us” ain’t gonna cut it. Neither will “Shut Up and Go Away.”

What did Bob “The Silencer” Bauer know, when did he know it, and how long does the Most Transparent Administration Ever plan to play dodgeball with the public?

http://michellemalkin.com/

Offering politicians a political appointment that requires them to leave an elected position or not to run for an elected position is a standard practice. It is not a 'bribe' in that there is no expected renumeration. It does force the party to choose between the two jobs, and it does benefit the person who offers the job by opening up a seat.

BTW, unlike UT I would have no problem listening to Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter, provided they were together naked and addressing me from a tub filled with lime jello.

Well actually in this case, if you were to believe the current reports, that is not the case. Sestak has admitted on numerous occassions that someone from the WH called him and offered him a job, supposedly as the Sec of Nav., if he were to drop out of the race. That is a serious allegation by Sestak. The ball is really in his court. He is the one who said it....

If you don't like Malkins delivery you can look at the otherwise liberal rag the NYT for another view...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — For three months, the White House has refused to say whether it offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak to get him to drop his challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in a Pennsylvania Democratic primary, as Mr. Sestak has asserted.

But the White House wants everyone who suspects that something untoward, or even illegal, might have happened to rest easy: though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

“Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “And nothing inappropriate happened.”

“Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?” asked the host, Bob Schieffer.

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were,” Mr. Gibbs replied. “People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the “trust us” response from the White House has not exactly put the matter to rest. With Mr. Sestak’s victory over Mr. Specter in last week’s primary, the questions have returned with intensity, only to remain unanswered. Mr. Gibbs deflected questions 13 times at a White House briefing last week just two days after the primary. Mr. Sestak, a retired admiral, has reaffirmed his assertion without providing any details, like who exactly offered what job.

Republicans have pressed Mr. Sestak to explain. “Congressman Sestak should tell the public everything he knows about the job he was offered, and who offered it,” former Representative Pat Toomey, his Republican opponent, said Monday.

Amber Marchand, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said, “Joe Sestak owes Pennsylvanians a full explanation for this potentially illegal activity.”

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us...=sestak&st=cse

Quote:

though it still will not reveal what happened, the White House is reassuring skeptics that it has examined its own actions and decided it did nothing wrong. Whatever it was that it did.

I dunno whether this is a big deal or not. I don't really think it is at this point.

But that line right there is classic!

It would have never been an issue if 1. the White House would not have tried to bribe him out of the race, and 2. IF he would have never admitted to it numerous times in public.

the Fish is rotting from the head...

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 658693)

BTW, unlike UT I would have no problem listening to Helen Thomas and Michael Moore, provided they were together naked and addressing me from a tub filled with lime jello.

Fixed it for ya. Eeeewww!:thepain:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 658768)

Fail.

Loser.

Repubican shill.

Spexx, your sort and your favored boys had better not win if you still like living in a Republic. I do.

Nor is it within your power to make Merc a loser. Fail. Fail hard. Fail hard and suffer, you antigun, antiliberty atrocity of a man. To stay antigun, you have to stay pro-genocide. To stay Left, you have to stay subadult.

So, UG, my man...do you really not understand that Spexx was only mimicking the idiotic nonsense that merc vomits all the freaking time, in most threads, except for the ones in which he is trying to achieve favor from all the right people?

"You fail. You suck. Prove it. Cite."

You should pay more attention, then irony will become funny for you too.

Or, funny for you to. And, for merc, it's Shrill. Not shill. Not shrill. Shrill.

Brilliancy on your side, are you not proud?

If its good enough their hero Reagan....

Hayakawa spurns job offer

....why are the Repubs so outraged?

I dont recall there being any calls by either party for a special prosecutor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redux (Post 658944)

....why are the Repubs so outraged?
...

Because they're nasty, unhappy, frustrated, poor losers. Emphasis on losers.

Denied. Need to update the prescription on those Spexx, there, buddy. We're taking Team Socialist to the woodshed this November and in 2012, and you for one are going to howl.

When you could instead be a capitalist, and get a life worth having lived it.

Shawn, Spexx means that sort of thing: he is not satirizing. He is a hoplophobe and a pacifist, and except for the positive feature of being quiet neighbors, such people live terrible lives of neurosis, what with repressed subconscious fears of what they might do were they to snap. It's not good, and his writings show this. I've seen him have a meltdown before. I know better ways to live, and I live them.

White House caught in another lie, trying to bribe someone to drop out of a race for a promise of a job in the White House.

Rod Blagojevich has good company with the Demoncrats in the White House.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, June 3 (Reuters) - A top aide to President Barack Obama discussed a possible administration job with a Colorado Democrat to try to keep him from running for the U.S. Senate against a candidate Obama had endorsed, the White House acknowledged on Thursday.

Jim Messina, White House deputy chief of staff, talked about three jobs with former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in an unsuccessful attempt to head off a primary challenge against incumbent Senator Michael Bennet, who Obama supports.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN...pe=marketsNews

This is just more SOP from Washington. It is not a party specific problem. Even Ed Rendell admitted as much last night. This is an issue that will, unfortunately never be addressed.

But don't worry, the Justice Dept is looking into criminal charges against BP, JW Bush, Capitalism, America, and apple pie.

[sean]That's the Chicago way.[/connery]

I was not surprised by this ... but Benedict Arlen was doomed from the start.

I need a little help understanding what makes this unethical or corrupt? This is pretty standard party politics isn't it?

I think its unethical, corrupt AND pretty standard party politics.

It removes potential candidates from running for a particular office who the people might elect. That limits the peoples choices to candidates those which others have selected.

If you use their moral compass they are creating a way for two valuable people to stay in public service... Democracy itself is unethical/immoral but it is the system in place.

Deals are made at all levels of politics...from dog catcher to president.

And this certainly doesnt rise to the level of "bribery" any more so that Reagan's attempt to clear the field for his daughter's run for senator in the 80s.

Obama also made a deal with Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of NH and the Democratic governor of NH when he offered the post of Commerce Secretary to Gregg with the agreement that the Democratic governor would appoint a Republican to fill Gregg's senate seat til the next election.

A tidbit of history. Eisenhower reportedly offer Earl Warren (the governor of California) a seat on the Supreme Court if Warren convinced his delegates at the convention that year to switch their votes to Eisenhower.

If you use their moral compass they are creating a way for peoplethat they have determined ....

I thought was "of the, by the, for the... - not dictated to the.

ETA - I know this has been going on for relatively ever in politics - nothing new.

Wasn't Watergate pretty standard party politics also?
Also, isn't there something called the Hatch Act?

Bull shit. It does not matter which party does it, it is illegal to try to bribe participants with promises of jobs which will produce income in an effort to influence and manipulate the election process.

Transparency my ass.......

The Dems have been caught in a pack of lies.

This will be a great point of discussion in the coming elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 660793)

Wasn't Watergate pretty standard party politics also?
Also, isn't there something called the Hatch Act?

Breaking and entering probably crossed a line. There is something called the Hatch Act which I believe applies to public service employees but not to the partisan hacks er... policy makers placed above them. I could be wrong but this looks like the usual partisan game of holding your opposition to a much higher code than your team. The thing is this one does not seem to violate any code of ethics at all. I'm guessing that Glen Beck is selling it to you much better than you're selling it to us.

But here is the rub...

The Obamanation and Pelosi set the bar. Not the Republickins. The Dems set the bar as to how there were going to conduct business. They failed to live up to the promises that got them elected.

Once again, please tell me what Obama did. Rush and Glenn are really good at selling partisan bullshit but you are not so you'll have to sell based on the quality of your product. What exactly are you trying to sell me?

Man I have no idea what Rush and Glenn are selling, if you want to buy into the partisan bullshit of your party, go right ahead.

What Iam saying is that the Obama Administration and Pelosi set the bar. Not the Republickins. The Dems set the bar as to how there were going to conduct business. They failed to live up to the promises that got them elected. They lied to the American public to get elected and now the people are seeing through their Kabuki Theater. They lied to the people.

Since you obviously listen to Rush and Glen, what have they been saying as of late?

I have no party, only country. You appear to be moving further afield than this one thing which seems to have no traction, but it is my bed-time.

But you never really addressed the issues.

Do you watch Rush and Glenn Beck, therefore you can say that I or any other poster is selling the "partisan bullshit"? I don't watch them so what say you? I am not trying to sell you a fucking thing, but don't put partisan bullshit into my posts because we agree to disagree on issues.

So when is the last time you watched Rush and Glenn Beck? and how do you know what I watch? Please be man enough to own up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 661466)

I have no party, only country.

Impressive statement Griff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 661469)

Rush maybe 4 years ago. Beck, I've seen bits and pieces recently when I eat at a local restaurant. We agree that the spending levels of this administration are unsustainable, but this particular issue is silly stuff which undermines legitimate opposition to policy. We seem to be headed down that morals road we went with Clinton, which I was on board with at the time, but in retrospect seems counter-productive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 661494)

Impressive statement Griff.

It probably says more about the unimpressive nature of the two major parties and their unwillingness to govern to the center and acknowledge the price (moral/economic) of their policies. I still think Obama could be a solid President, but the other major players in his party make that extremely difficult. I also think politicians need to grow up and argue policy rather than spend their days flaming each other in the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 661463)

...What Iam saying is that the Obama Administration and Pelosi set the bar. Not the Republickins. The Dems set the bar as to how there were going to conduct business. They failed to live up to the promises that got them elected. They lied to the American public to get elected and now the people are seeing through their Kabuki Theater. They lied to the people...

Fail.
You say that as if campaign promises are not broken after every election. Bush claimed that he would build bipartison concensus, as he claimed to have done in Texas. He didn't even try. His father promised "no new taxes". They're all hypocrits. Like you.

And we had to read his lips to get THAT promise!

It just wasn't prudent, not at that juncture. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 660790)

Political parties are private organizations, with membership, and will do exactly what you say: they will act in a way that they think will give them the best chance to control the policies of the nation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 661525)

:notworthy

Quote:

I also think politicians need to grow up and argue policy rather than spend their days flaming each other in the press.

Yeh! thats for us to do here. :gray:

This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot.

A "bribe"? Sure. Just as the gnat sees the splash from my teaspoon as a tidal wave. I guess it depends on your perspective. I'm bigger than that and I'm certain everyone else here is too.

If I'm running an organization, I'd want to have the best people working for me. You might say "bribe", others, like me, might say "headhunting" or "poaching" or "recruiting". But even the most dedicated opponent agrees that the law says appointees can not also hold or run for office. So, instead of breaking the law, by telling the person you're seeking to add to your team that, by law, they can not hold or run for office, the administration was obeying the law.

How can anyone fail to understand that?

The only answer to that question I can conceive of is either maliciousness or laziness.

That is but one scenario.
Another - and I'm just hypothesizing here....
Say the polls show that "your guy" would get his butt kicked by opponent "A" but would beat opponent "B".
You want your guy in there so you offer this other guy a job.
OR
You have two guys on your team and you owe one a favor whereas the other, although he is technically on your team, doesn't really sign on for everything you want him to - you can't really count on him... So you offer him some outta the way type appointment - say a Czar type unpaid position for 3-6 months till you can give him a paid job ;)

Quote:

On its face, the Obama White House's efforts to coax Sestak out of the Democratic primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., looks like the kind of nudge that happens all the time in politics, at all levels of government.

But the problem for the Obama White House is that the president wasn't supposed to be that kind of politician. He offered himself up as an antidote to the deal-cutting, backroom culture of Washington under his predecessors of both parties.

Whether or not anything illegal took place -- and most legal experts agree that it's a stretch to argue laws were broken, if the facts were as the White House presented them last week -- the political fallout could be substantial.

Link
That sums it up for me much better than I could have.
Is this anything new? - Absolutely not - just further proof that Obama IS just another politician.