Top Senate Democrat wants answers from Sestak on job offer

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

By Michael O'Brien - 05/25/10 12:28 PM ET

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) should explain more about allegations the White House offered him a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race, a top Senate Democrat said Tuesday.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the onus is on Sestak to say more about the offer he claimed to have received from the Obama administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

"At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make clear what happened," Durbin told reporters at the Capitol.

Republicans have put pressure on Sestak and the White House to explain more about their conversations, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Goverment Reform Committee, who has suggested a criminal probe in the matter.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99731-durbin-wants-answers-from-sestak

[xultar]

1. I was happy he won till i found out how ignorant he was

[Winterblues]

2. Is there a law against the Administration offering incentive to drop out of the race?

I believe politics have been done in this manner forever.

[saracat]

4. Nope. They can persuade a candidate NOT to run, but dropping out of a Primary which

would leave only one candidate remaining, and that candidate is the WH choice is considered and ethics violation because it is interfering in determining the outcome of an election.

[saracat]

3. What makes him ignorant? Other than he is a conservudem? And he didn't protect the WH?

[dgibby]

5. I agree. This is a serious charge.

Sestak needs to be completely open with Congress and the public.

If he was offered a job, he needs to divulge the name of the individual making the offer, what the offer was, and was it, indeed, a quid pro quo.

I like Joe, but he needs to put his money where his mouth is.

[joeybee12]

6. Durbin needs to STFU...first covering Obama's lies about drilling, and now

this...STFU and win the goddammed Senate seat!

[karynnj]

7. Durbin is the number 2 person in the Senate

It is his right - and possibly responsibility to say this. As this is becoming an issue, it is reasonable for Sestak to clear up completely any questions here.

Your hatred of Obama seems to have expanded to Durbin. You have blasted Obama since he beat Edwards and Hillary.

[saracat]

9. That old canard. Sigh.Sestak does need to speak up but the WH doesn't get to say "No comment "

again either. They went from originally an outright denial to refusing to comment. Sestak was very clear in his TV interview about what went down as as He has never retracted it, it is likely what happened. The President himself may or may not personally be involved but it is obvious the WH was.

[karynnj]

13. I didn't see the clip, but it seems from some accounts that he did not say

what he was offered - just that he was offered something. It could NOT have been the Secretary of the Navy slot as he left the military too recently. (per someone here - I don't personally know that rule and have heard it just for Secretary of Defense. Even if it was, the Navy job, he is certainly qualified.

I really think this was blown up out of proportion. The fact is Sestak is a very capable man and at the point that Specter became a democrat, it made Sestak very much the under dog. As he had been previously encouraged to run, offering him something seems only fair. How is this different from Obama offering Hillary Clinton the secretary of State position - at least partially to avoid there being a strong alternative Democratic leader? (Think Kennedy to Carter - though there was a bigger ideological gap there.)

[saracat]

17. I explained what I thought.It is an ethical violation to effect the outcome of an election.

If Obama offered Hillary Sec.of State, as a price, in order to drop out of an active election that too would be very wrong. AFAIK, he only offered her a position after the primary. You are correct. Sestak did not say Sec. of the Navy. He said it was a high level position and didn't answer when asked about Sec. of the Navy. He said he would not say. It is sufficient what he did say.He said the WH offered him a job to "drop out". That would have decided a primary.That was wrong.That was taking a choice away from the voters that they had been given , and denying it to them once the process was begun for manipulation of power. This could even be considered an abuse of power.The thing is, no one has said Obama directly did this. Sestak states it was the WH. That could have been anyone.

[karynnj]

19. At the point offered, it wouldn't have seemed to be likely to change the election

It seemed more like an attempt to soothe ill feelings because he had been the likely one to run.

In the case of Hillary, you could argue that eliminated the risk that she could run against Obama in 2012.

[saracat]

23. Oh please. And Hillary wasn't likely to run in 2012 anyway. And it seems she was offered the

position AFTER the Primary. And if it wasn't likely to change the results they wouldn't have offered it. As I said, it depends if it was before or after an official campaign. This seesms to have been an offer to "drop out" meaning, the campaign had begun and both were on the ballot. In that case it would be wrong.

[karynnj]

30. Of course it was after the primary - I was speaking of 2012 or just not having an independent

power - and it was a reason listed by many as to why it was smart - in addition, to all the skills Clinton brought to it. I think it was before he was officially in, but there were already many signals that he was running. I think it was long before when people filed to get on the ballot.

[saracat]

31. I dunno. The indications that I have read are that is was afterward. That is why we need to know.

I think he was already on the ballot. But I may be wrong.I don't like this kind of shenanigans from anyone.

[rayofreason]

8. Backroom deals...

...are the coin of the realm of corrupt politics.

[BootinUp]

14. Corruption can't be done away with with some magic wand

and it doesn't make sense to jump to conclusions before facts are in. If you think its corruption for Sestak to have been offered this unknown job, then make that case first, cause right now I don't see it.

[Politicalboi]

10. Does Dick want to see

Obama's birth certificate too? Where were these fools when Bush was stealing our treasury, and starting illegal wars? Where were the questions Dick? Since January 20th 2009, all the "patriots" have been coming out of the wood work from their long 8 year slumber. And wasn't Joe at that time a "possible" candidate? Fuck the Repukes and their "questions".

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Dick Durbin is a Democrat, not a 'Repuke'

[BootinUp]

12. Why is Durbin doing this? nt

[golfguru]

37. Honesty, truth, candor, openness, transparency comes to mind?

But then what do I know.

[BootinUp]

38. or the appearance of such, lol. nt

[xsquid]

15. I really believe Durbin is right and it all needs to come out now.

Does anyone really believe it would bed better for the facts to come out just before the november elections? I think it would be better now.

[and-justice-for-all]

16. Since when is a job offer a crime?..nt

[saracat]

18. It is a crime to effect the results of an election. Offering a job to get

a candidate to "drop out" deprives the voters of a choice. If the job is offered prior to the candidate declaring and getting on the ballot it is different. I would imagine one can encourage or discourage candidates to run or not.

[boppers]

20. Voters can vote for whomever they want, regardless of what job that person has.

So, your premise doesn't actually work.

If anybody was acting in a way that would change the election, it would have been Sestack, if he had decided to step out, and take another job... and that's also not a crime.

[saracat]

21. They can't vote for someone who is removed from the ballot. or is ineligible

by way of dropping out. Are you deliberately obtuse? If the candidate is no longer eligible any vote for them does not count.

[boppers]

24. You are confused about how ballots work.

You are familiar with the concept of a write-in candidate, are you not? Dropping out is a public formality, and he also could have taken a job offer, *and* maintained his eligibility.

I think the reason both sides have clammed up is because they realized how sleazy this could make Sestack look, in that he was hypothetically willing to negotiate his possible seat away.

[saracat]

26. What a crock and a stretch. Sestak already came forward and wasn't willing to negotiate anything

away. He came forward months ago. Do some research. The GOP were just waiting to see who won to decide how to push this. Sestak doesn't look bad at all. It is the WH who proffered an offer and were refused. Considering it is Sestak who blew the whistle, AND refused the offer, and the WH publicly backed another candidate, There is no credibility to your claim at all.

[boppers]

28. Who is the WH publicly backing now?

Making this into a public, political, issue was a huge mis-calculation, and it's going hang over the whole campaign if the GOP has their way.

[saracat]

29. Reluctanly Sestak. only because he won. So if the WH is guilty, because they are Dem

you think it should be ignored? if it were Bush would you be saying, no big deal? I do not believe in double standards and no matter who did this it is wrong.

[saracat]

27. And Sestak wasn't a write in candidate. And I know likely better than most how ballots work.

[BootinUp]

32. I agree.

There is no crime here unless a law exists I am unaware of that specifically addresses job offers to declared candidates.

[marshall]

34. What was it Nixon said about the president and breaking the law?

Even if the law exists, it can be skirted.

And if a law is broken and nobody cares (except the media), do heads roll?

[BootinUp]

35. It seems to me that you are straying from the topic

that I thought I was joining, which is, can a job offer to an announced candidate be legally prosecuted under any existing law. The research I did this morning after I posted my opinion says the answer is most likely No. Check media matters and Talking Point Memo.

Until someone tells me what law(s) we are talking about and can show they have been used to do this kind of prosecution, why should I discuss skirting one? Thats a ridiculous hypothetical scenario.

[marshall]

36. I'm sure this kind of thing has gone on all the time

Most folks aren't as loose lipped as Sestak.

There are statutes that the talking heads point to. What is relevant is public opinion.

[robinblue]

22. Nicely said. Gibbs has sidesweeped the question many times.

[saracat]

25. Yes, he has.

[robcon]

33. I think this a choreographed and scripted play.

Durbin (a person of substance) was asked to make that statement, and then the White House will make a complete exploration of the legality and/or appropriateness of the job offer, if it was made.

This just buys time by showing some urgency to get to the bottom of this. The White House will respond as Durbin requested. Sestak will make a further announcement at about the same time. The topic will go away.

Smart politics, IMO. Emanuel is probably behind it.

[24601]

39. OK - am I the first to say it? "What did the President know and

when did he know it?"

Unless Sestak is lying, someone needs to resign or be fired before it reflects directly on the President.

[ShortnFiery]

40. I believe Sestak. Why don't we wait until the entire truth comes out before judgement?

:shrug:

[24601]

41. You can wait - and in the criminal justice system it certainly is the

way to go. In politics, however, you need to stop the bleeding as soon as possible. No one short of the constitutional officers (POTUS & VP) need to stick around when it weakens the Presidency and distracts from getting important things implemented. The longer a staffer remains, the more it has the appearance of a cover up.

[Mimosa]

42. Transparency and honesty, please.

Saracat is always on the side of honesty and the American way.

I do not believe Barack himself would break known Federal law and offer a job to get somebody to drop out of a race. I don't know whether Rahm Emanuel would, but I have a feeling it was he. We shall see.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Oops, already been answered.

Try again next time! :shrug: