Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/01. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Lies, Damn Lies, and Politicians: High Crimes and Misdemeanors at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (Part 1)

Posted on May 30 2010 8:00 pm
Liz Blaine is a financial analyst, author and freelance writer on finance, economics and politics. Follow her on Twitter and her blog Liz Blaine.
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

The Chicago Machine moved to Washington and a disturbing pattern of bribery, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to corrupt the American electoral process is now synonymous with 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The latest incident is a classic quid pro quo for political advantage and subsequent coordinated cover-up to mitigate collateral damage and obstruct the truth. In this three part series, I will delve into the scandal, the blatant inconsistencies between the “coordinated” statements of involved parties, and the potential crimes commited by the Obama administration in this, and other, pay-for-play schemes.

The Scandal

Set in a motion by a February 18th interview with Philadelphia news anchor Larry Kane, Congressman Joe Sestak’s allegation ignited a political firestorm.

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?” Kane was referring to the Democratic Senate primary against Arlen Specter.
“Yes,” Sestak answered.
“Was it Navy Secretary?”
“No comment,” said Sestak.
According to Kane, Sestak talked about staying in the race but added that he “was called many times” to pull out. Later, Kane asked: “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

After disavowing the offer’s existence for three months, President Obama was forced to publicly comment on the Sestak scandal Thursday, but only after meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton, the sacrificial lamb upon whom the blame would be laid the following day. (How bad can the truth be when the sitting President has to bring in a proven perjurer to be his alibi?)  Mimicking press secretary Robert Gibbs, the Obfuscator-In-Chief blathered to reporters at the White House,

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.”

In other words, he did not have employment relations with that Congressman.


As with Van Jonesresignation in the middle of the night on Labor Day weekend, the Obama administration used the Friday news dump on Memorial Weekend to finally respond to questions about the Sestack deal. White House Attorney Robert Bauer formally issued a legal memorandum stating, in part:

We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.

“Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false….At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.

“Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak Declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”

Hmmm, that’s in direct contradiction to Sestak’s original statements. Is it any surprise Sestak clammed up and refused to identify any other details until “the White House released its report on the matter?” Sestak’s silence provided ample room for the White House to manuever multiple alibi scenarios. (How long does it take to compose an alibi?)

This is Sestak’s latest version:

“Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives.

I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing 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.”

Although intimately coordinated with the White House’s formal statement, Sestak is a prime candidate to become the Obama administration’s Deep Throat. Like Obama’s private meeting with Clinton, the clandestine meeting between the Sestak camp and the White House Wednesday was never meant to reach the airwaves. But silence is not Sestak’s finest quality. Whether intentional or not, he has much more to say about the coordinated affair. The Washington Post reports Sestak stated last week,

“They (the White House) got hold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House… about what’s going to occur,” said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother.”

Shades of a Watergate-esque cover-up continue as the complicit media lay the groundwork for plausible deniability. Tweeting a White House source told him Obama was kept in the dark about the bribe attempt, CNN’s John King reports (Hattip: Freeper Kristin)

The Obama administration’s institutionalized corruption led them to first deny, then  “coordinate” a statement in hopes of whitewashing their latest quid pro quo scandal over a holiday weekend. In their rush they overlooked several contradictions in their “story” and the subsequent legal ramifications.

Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 on the inconsistencies created by the White House’s effort to obfuscate the truth, and further details on the pattern of bribery, corruption, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy by those working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Click here for Part 2: The Inconsistencies

Be Sociable, Share!
11 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry