Obama corruption cover-up

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Obama corruption cover-up
15
Fri, 05-28-2010 - 1:06pm

White House Asked Bill Clinton to Urge Sestak to Drop Out of Senate Race

The White House asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Rep. Joe Sestak about the possibility of obtaining a senior position in the Obama administration if he would drop out of the Democratic primary race against establishment-backed Sen. Arlen Specter, the Obama administration said in a report released Friday morning.

But the report, by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, concluded that "allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law."

Batting down allegations that the White House dangled the secretary of Navy position in front of Sestak, the report said that Sestak was offered executive branch positions on advisory boards that were uncompensated.

One of the jobs Clinton specifically discussed with Sestak was the president's intelligence advisory board. But a White House official said the plan always was for Sestak to remain in the House, and he couldn't have served in the House and on the president's intelligence advisory board.

The report also described the Clinton conversations as informal and not tied to any precise job offer since, as a former president, Clinton could not guarantee Sestak anything.

Clinton initiated conversations with Sestakat the behest of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was Clinton's political director when he was president. As president, Clinton promoted Sestak to vice admiral and made him his director of defense policy. Sestak was also a loyal and tireless supporter of Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2008.

In a written statement, Sestak said Clinton called him last summer to express concerns over his prospect of jumping into the Senate primary"and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background.

Sestak said he told Clinton that "my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right things to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer.

"The former president said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects," Sestak said.

The White House report disputed any suggestion that there was "impropriety" in Clinton's discussion with Sestak over possible alternatives to his Senate candidacy.

"There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office," the report read. "Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements."

The report comes one day after President Obama insisted "nothing improper" happened with Sestak. On that same day, Obama had lunch with Clinton.

"This is punishable by prison. This is a felony," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has been leading the charge for more details on the allegation.

"This is about the White House. This is not about Congressman Sestak," Issa said, adding that he wants to know what Clinton was empowered to say. "They've answered a question and it begs many more answers," he said. "We want elections not to be appointments."

Critics say the Sestak job offer may have violated the part of the U.S. code that says: "Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation...appointment...provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress...to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity...or in connection with any primary election ...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 06-04-2010 - 2:29pm

>>> I agree this is looking very bad for Obama. When I voted for him I thought it was GOOD that he lacked the D.C. experience. Unfortunately, despite his IQ of 160, he's not bright enough to steer clear of the Rahm and Clinton scuzziness. And I was always suspect of Obama's consulting the Clintons and the Clinton-admin appts he made.

First...since Barry has sealed all of his records to hide them from the people, how do you know he has an IQ of 160? Personally, I've seen very little evidence of higher intelligence...in fact, Obama's ineptitude in so many areas is quite staggering. I've also seen lots of evidence of corruption and the general "scuzziness" you mentioned...but I think it's all Obama, and not something new he learned from Rahm or the Clintons. Basically, I think the Obama you were sold is a complete charade...with the reality being a lot darker than we could imagine.

>>> I will support impeachment if what's being reported about attempts to keep Romanoff and Stesak out of the Senate races is found to be true. You are all right--this is starting to look like Obama's Watergate.

"Found to be true?" The "White House" has admitted it. It's also quite obvious that those kind of machinations could not have occurred without Obama's specific knowledge. The lies are slowly being exposed...with the Dems circling the wagons, I hope the Republicans keep digging.

>>> I just hope that Emanuel, Bill Clinton and Geithner lose their political careers along with Obama.

I second that. Their brand of politics is, as you described, "scuzzy" and the country would be well rid of them all.

>>> Although Hillary is doing a decent job as SOS, I always questioned her decision to stick with her sleezy husband--seems like she did it for political purposes and that's one of the reasons I never supported her as the dem pres candidate.

I've not been as impressed with her performance as SoS as you have. I think she and Slick Willy were cut from the same cloth...so while a "capable" politician, I think she just brings more of that
scuzziness" to DC and again, we'd all be better off without it.

>>> This crap is making me, more and more, want Alan Grayson & Dennis Kucinich to run for pres in 2012. We need some REAL progressives without the corporate and political ties to the past three decades.

Sorry, can't agree with you there...Kucinich is a little to left for me and Grayson is a complete wackjob.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Fri, 06-04-2010 - 3:33pm

Check out Alan Grayson's bio if you think he's a whack job.

"Found to be true": The law applies to politicians just like to the rest of us. And politicians in this country, and probably in every other country, have forever been doing all they can to get their supporters elected. Until he is determined, by the courts, to have violated U.S. law, he should not be impeached.

As discussed on NPR today, even if everything was carried out legally, what'll really hurt Obama is that he campaigned on change and on cleaning up Washington. So his lack of tranparency in the Romanoff/Stesak cases is as bad as the Republicans' hypocrisy when they go off with their mistresses while preaching family values.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-03-2009
Fri, 06-04-2010 - 3:40pm
Well knock me over with a feather!!!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 06-04-2010 - 5:22pm

>>> Check out Alan Grayson's bio if you think he's a whack job.

I've heard him speak...he's a wackjob...and like Obama, a Harvard education won't change that. In fact, it really makes you question the kind of "education" you get at Harvard.

>>> "Found to be true": The law applies to politicians just like to the rest of us. And politicians in this country, and probably in every other country, have forever been doing all they can to get their supporters elected. Until he is determined, by the courts, to have violated U.S. law, he should not be impeached.

Again, I disagree. The law is quite clear...and legal conviction or not, Obama violated it. And "everyone does it" doesn't excuse Obama's criminal act. He tried to seal the elections from the people in order to consolidate his personal power...and you should be outraged at his "audacity." He should absolutely be impeached.

>>> As discussed on NPR today, even if everything was carried out legally,

It wasn't...

>>> what'll really hurt Obama is that he campaigned on change and on cleaning up Washington. So his lack of tranparency in the Romanoff/Stesak cases is as bad as the Republicans' hypocrisy when they go off with their mistresses while preaching family values.

A ridiculous comparison. One can preach "family values" as a party platform while personally acting differently...but Obama claimed that HE (and his regime) would act in a particular manner and then HE violated that promise...almost since day one.




Edited 6/4/2010 5:24 pm ET by gouvernor.morris
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Fri, 06-04-2010 - 11:19pm

"What I'm saying is I don't believe he was suckered into any of this. I believe he sought out these kinds of people."

You are 100% correct. Obama knew full well the type of people he was surrounding himself with at the outset. He sought out these people, they weren't looking for him.

Pages