RE: The Sestak Allegation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


atursvcMaam -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 5:23:43 PM)

I think the republicans put specter in this position to embarass Obama.  It is a vast right wing conspiracy.

aww. c'mon somebody had to say it.




Sanity -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 5:56:08 PM)


Video montage of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stonewalling reporters contrasted against Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak admitting that he was offered a job with the administration in exchange for dropping his bid for the Senate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJLejs_0ZR0&feature=player_embedded






TheHeretic -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 5:59:20 PM)

It isn't the crime that gets them, it's the cover-up. Even if there wasn't a crime to begin with, the cover-up can still get them.




Sanity -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 6:14:17 PM)


The crime itself is a felony, so may well get them.




servantforuse -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 6:47:42 PM)

He should have taken the offer. Secretary of the Navy would be a lot more fun than being a senator.




TheHeretic -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 7:37:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The crime itself is a felony, so may well get them.




Don't be sure, Sanity. Politics is all about making deals. For this to hit the mark you are talking about, certain lines must be crossed (think in terms of drinking and driving - it's completely legal, until you hit a certain blood alcohol level). There is nothing inherently wrong in a meeting between a potential candidate and the leadership of the party. There is nothing wrong with discussing where he sees himself in politics, or service to his country, 5 - 10 - 15 years down the road. The quid pro quo needs to be pretty blatant, AND you have to be able to prove it in a court of law.

I don't understand why the White House didn't just throw Sestak under the bus the first time Gibbs came back with an answer (ok. Yes I do, but I think it was the dumb choice). It makes me wonder about what went on in the meeting everybody agrees happened. Was Sestak being as dense about what was on the table, as he is about what he has now stirred up with his "honest answers?" Did someone on the President's staff get frustrated and blurt out the offer straight, maybe?

I'll be very interested to see how the President answers the question tomorrow. After Gibbs had nothing to add a dozen times, it seems likely it will come up.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 11:24:22 PM)

President Obama's , Senator Specter's and Rep. Sestak's sex lives are none of our business. Just censor them and Move On already




FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/26/2010 11:25:34 PM)

Oh and its Clinton's falt... both of them




Sanity -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 5:36:51 AM)


quote:

The (montage) tape was released hours before Sestak and Gibbs were scheduled to appear as guests on Sunday national TV talk shows this weekend. In a statement released by Issa, who is the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as a well as a senior member of Judiciary, the Congressman said:
For months, a United States Congressman has stated that the White House offered him a job in exchange for not running in an election -- we call this a bribe. Despite being asked numerous times, the White House has not refuted Congressman Sestak's allegations, but refuses to disclose who offered what and when. So this Administration, that pledged to be a beacon of transparency and change, continues to conceal from the American people the truth about what exactly was said and offered. Until we get direct answers, this White House doesn't have a leg to stand on when they talk about openness and change.
During his Meet the Press appearance, Sestak was asked by moderator David Gregory in this fashion:
MR. GREGORY: Yes or no, straightforward question. Were you, were you offered a job, and what was the job?

REP. SESTAK
: I was offered a job, and I answered that.

MR. GREGORY
: You said no, you wouldn't take the job. Was it the secretary of the Navy?

REP. SESTAK
: Right. And I also said, "Look, I'm getting into this...
The "Right" answer would be the first time that Sestak has personally confirmed what has been long suspected -- the bribe Issa mentions was indeed the job of Secretary of the Navy. Meanwhile, over on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Obama press secretary Gibbs was saying this:
BOB SCHIEFFER: One final question. Joe Sestak who beat Arlen Specter and the White House, of course, was-- was backing Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary up there. All these reports that the White House offered him some sort of job, some sort of post in the administration, if he wouldn't run, would you tell us what-- what post he was offered?

ROBERT GIBBS
: Well, Bob, I-- I'm not a lawyer. But lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And noting-- nothing inappropriate happened. I-- I think Republicans are continuing to dredge this up because if you look just a couple of days after this primary, the polling shows that Republicans are already behind in a very important Senate race.

BOB SCHIEFFER
: Improper or not, did you offer him a job in the administration?

ROBERT GIBBS
: I-- I-- I'm not going to get--

BOB SCHIEFFER
(overlapping): Okay.

ROBERT GIBBS
: --further into what the conversations were. People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way.
Which is to say, while Sestak is now admitting the job in question was Secretary of the Navy, Gibbs refuses yet again to discuss the issue. He makes it clear the White House will not be revealing the name of the person who offered Sestak the job of Secretary of the Navy.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/24/bribe-charge-issa-jobsgate-vid/print


This could be serious. This will very potentially cost the Dems a Senate seat, and no one could possibly offer the Secretary of Navy position without going through the president.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors".







popeye1250 -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 12:47:46 PM)

Obama's got "the Midas touch", Sestak will be another one who goes down bigtime in November.
And, Obama was at the Getty estate for a $17,800 *per plate* fundraiser for the hideous Barbara Boxer!
"Getty", "British Petrolium", sounds like Oil Money to me.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 6:29:32 PM)

I've been wrong this whole time...

It was Nixon's fault.




dovie -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 6:34:28 PM)

This is a funny thread. Thanks for the laughs.

Regards,
dovie




TheHeretic -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 6:34:54 PM)

Don't get me started on Boxer, Popeye. She's a dirty campaigner and will probably get herself re-elected again.

Interesting answer at the President's press conf. A full report will be coming soon. The LA Times has already run the headline:

(You're going to love this one, Popeye)

Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on Sestak
link




domiguy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 6:40:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

I've been wrong this whole time...

It was Nixon's fault.


You have been wrong with almost every post you make why change now?




domiguy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 6:50:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The crime itself is a felony, so may well get them.


You can only hope that You will get Them.
Unfortunately it looks like no laws have been broken.


Sorry Charlie, better luck next time.




Sanity -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 7:06:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Don't get me started on Boxer, Popeye. She's a dirty campaigner and will probably get herself re-elected again.

Interesting answer at the President's press conf. A full report will be coming soon. The LA Times has already run the headline:

(You're going to love this one, Popeye)

Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on Sestak
link



[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

Hilarious, true, and appropriate.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/27/2010 10:30:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
... why change now?



You're right of couse, its McCarthy's fault




FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/28/2010 1:30:08 PM)

Nope... I was right before, it was Clinton's fault




pahunkboy -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/28/2010 1:51:32 PM)

At least we know the voting machines work.




popeye1250 -> RE: The Sestak Allegation (5/28/2010 4:49:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Don't get me started on Boxer, Popeye. She's a dirty campaigner and will probably get herself re-elected again.

Interesting answer at the President's press conf. A full report will be coming soon. The LA Times has already run the headline:

(You're going to love this one, Popeye)

Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on Sestak
link



Why OF COURSE NOT!
Now they're saying that former president Clinton offered Sestak a,........."Non-Paid "ADVISORY" position!!!
(Wink, wink, Nod nod!!!)
We can trust Bill "Joe Isuzu" Clinton,.....right?


Seventeen thousand dollars for a plate of chow, man, I hope they didn't leave there hungry!




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875