Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.
And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.
That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.
"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."
Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".
The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is here.)
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."
The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."
Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.
"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.
Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).
Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.
Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem.
It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.
The Sestak story continued ....
How Bill Clinton has become the roving fixer for the Obama administration.
The cover up is worse than the non-crime.
Joe Sestak released a statement on the conversation.
Republicans had a quick response.
The White House released a memo on the matter.
Sestak's brother has talked with the White House.
Obama himself said that "nothing improper" took place.
By Chris Cillizza | May 28, 2010; 11:28 AM ET
Comment:
"Change you can believe in?"- Sure Nixon, Reagan, and Bush might have done the same with Sestak- AND Bill Maher and Michael Moore would be SCREAMING- where are they now?
For that matter IMAGINE how Maher/Moore would be screaming about the inept "What Me Worry" job President Obama is doing to curb the flow of oil in the gulf- what would they be saying if a Bush was in office- HYPOCRITES! (Do we still have a Navy? With submarines?)
NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!
For that matter IMAGINE how Maher/Moore would be screaming about the inept "What Me Worry" job President Obama is doing to curb the flow of oil in the gulf- what would they be saying if a Bush was in office- HYPOCRITES! (Do we still have a Navy? With submarines?)
NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!
JPRS
Wow are you stretching it now.
This may come as news, but...the English language allows for more than one meaning to a word and I realize that the left is programmed to always be on the defensive, however, when a statement is made and then taken out of context.
Oh yes, Folks here we are to number 5 of Alinsky's model, take everything out of context and blow it out of proportion so that the opponent will spend his time trying to defend your attack and will have little or no time to make his point.
Anyway, Just open your mind for a moment and consider this. When the statement is made such as "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."
The word "just" is used to supplant the word "only".
OK so you made your point and it was rebuked.
Your turn.
And that should have been a hookah rather than hooter.
It really takes so little to rattle the left..... you are only proving my points with regards to you and "your" kind.
Wow now that I left myself wide open, either JPRS or another leftie may attempt to take that out of context and play the race-bait card...shhh, don't tell anyone, they may never notice on their own....
Lefties are the craziest peoples.....
Wow are you stretching it now.
This may come as news, but...the English language allows for more than one meaning to a word and I realize that the left is programmed to always be on the defensive, however, when a statement is made and then taken out of context.
Oh yes, Folks here we are to number 5 of Alinsky's model, take everything out of context and blow it out of proportion so that the opponent will spend his time trying to defend your attack and will have little or no time to make his point.
Anyway, Just open your mind for a moment and consider this. When the statement is made such as "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."
The word "just" is used to supplant the word "only".
OK so you made your point and it was rebuked.
Your turn.
And that should have been a hookah rather than hooter.
It really takes so little to rattle the left..... you are only proving my points with regards to you and "your" kind.
Wow now that I left myself wide open, either JPRS or another leftie may attempt to take that out of context and play the race-bait card...shhh, don't tell anyone, they may never notice on their own....
Lefties are the craziest peoples.....
ProCounsel,
What you're describing is a method of police work that usually results in
A. Bad police work.
B. The prosecution of innocent people
e.g. rather than following the evidence to where it leads and narrowing the pool of suspects based ON THE EVIDENCE, the police plant evidence and shape testimonies in order to gain a conviction of a pre-selected defendant.
Based on your approach, it would have been impossible for the investigators to have located the suspect in the recent failed Times Square attack, because the person was just one anonymous guy out of several million people. They did not know in advance who committed the crime, and there was no way that they could have known.
Unless you're dealing with a small community where everyone knows each another, then the "presumption of guilt" standard is likely to steer you wrong more often than not.
icsjp2003,
"No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent."
That statement literally makes no sense. The prosecutor makes no "assumption of precedent". The prosecutor will look to precedent for guidance on how to apply and interpret a law.
"The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent."
Only if a prosecutor finds cause and files suit.
"There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?"
Not only have there only been "a few" prosecutions -- the one prosecution brought under the law has no bearing on the facts involved in this case. This means that a new prosecution would involve a novel application of the law. After 70 years, it is at best, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the law would be used on this basis.
In the end, does this mean that anyone knows absolutely how this will play out?
Of course not.
What it does mean is that the legal foundation for any case would be built on a shaky foundation from the outset. It would quite literally create a new standard of illegal political action. Of course, time will tell how things play out.
What you're describing is a method of police work that usually results in
A. Bad police work.
B. The prosecution of innocent people
e.g. rather than following the evidence to where it leads and narrowing the pool of suspects based ON THE EVIDENCE, the police plant evidence and shape testimonies in order to gain a conviction of a pre-selected defendant.
Based on your approach, it would have been impossible for the investigators to have located the suspect in the recent failed Times Square attack, because the person was just one anonymous guy out of several million people. They did not know in advance who committed the crime, and there was no way that they could have known.
Unless you're dealing with a small community where everyone knows each another, then the "presumption of guilt" standard is likely to steer you wrong more often than not.
icsjp2003,
"No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent."
That statement literally makes no sense. The prosecutor makes no "assumption of precedent". The prosecutor will look to precedent for guidance on how to apply and interpret a law.
"The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent."
Only if a prosecutor finds cause and files suit.
"There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?"
Not only have there only been "a few" prosecutions -- the one prosecution brought under the law has no bearing on the facts involved in this case. This means that a new prosecution would involve a novel application of the law. After 70 years, it is at best, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the law would be used on this basis.
In the end, does this mean that anyone knows absolutely how this will play out?
Of course not.
What it does mean is that the legal foundation for any case would be built on a shaky foundation from the outset. It would quite literally create a new standard of illegal political action. Of course, time will tell how things play out.
JPRS
Just can't get through the discussion without insults eh? Well, I'll take that in view of the source then.
No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent. The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent. For a 70 year old law that has been tested so few times, I venture to guess there are many interpretations the courts could make of it.
There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?
Who are you to determine what the interpretation of the court will be based upon ALL the evidence.
What did we forget about evidence? Yes, there must be evidence as well and if the evidence is worthy, then you would be surprised what the courts deem as relevant. All he evidence has yet to come out.
I guess that book-lernin of yorn, might git ya pretty fer some day.
Now, it appears that we are boring our "so gracious" host here at the Washington Post.
Both of us have experienced "too many post" messages, and the newer cross posts are probably directed at breaking up the discussion anyway. Do ya think?
While we agree to disagree, I hold no malice, and you.... well... I pray you find your "Hope and Change".
I have enjoyed the exchange, and believe me, the pleasure was all mine.
Adieu
Look, final thoughts on this.
If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms.
However, the law specificly states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006
I see alot more than just an offer of compensation there.
Once again regardless of what happened in the Bush admin, or the Regan admin or what happened in Californica, none of it is applicable to the case at hand. Just because one or more persons got away with it does not mean that the law is invalid or un-applicable.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nuff said
Just can't get through the discussion without insults eh? Well, I'll take that in view of the source then.
No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent. The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent. For a 70 year old law that has been tested so few times, I venture to guess there are many interpretations the courts could make of it.
There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?
Who are you to determine what the interpretation of the court will be based upon ALL the evidence.
What did we forget about evidence? Yes, there must be evidence as well and if the evidence is worthy, then you would be surprised what the courts deem as relevant. All he evidence has yet to come out.
I guess that book-lernin of yorn, might git ya pretty fer some day.
Now, it appears that we are boring our "so gracious" host here at the Washington Post.
Both of us have experienced "too many post" messages, and the newer cross posts are probably directed at breaking up the discussion anyway. Do ya think?
While we agree to disagree, I hold no malice, and you.... well... I pray you find your "Hope and Change".
I have enjoyed the exchange, and believe me, the pleasure was all mine.
Adieu
Look, final thoughts on this.
If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms.
However, the law specificly states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006
I see alot more than just an offer of compensation there.
Once again regardless of what happened in the Bush admin, or the Regan admin or what happened in Californica, none of it is applicable to the case at hand. Just because one or more persons got away with it does not mean that the law is invalid or un-applicable.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nuff said
icsjp2003,
The defense is that politics in itself is not a crime. Horse-trading, earning chits, dispensing chits, are part of the nature of any political system.
"Material consideration" usually means an exchange of money.
In this case, the party leadership was trying to use its influence to shape the primary field. We still don't know what was offered -- if it was a non-paying seat on some board, then this is moot. Even if it was a position within the executive branch, I don't see the issue.
I'm much more concerned about the fact that we don't enforce clear cut cases of abuse.
e.g. Political staff shouldn't be telling the DOJ which US Attorneys to retain or fire mid-term. In the beginning of the term they might have some input, but they shouldn't be allowed to punish U.S. Attorneys for the failure to push purely politically motivated prosecutions. We should be closing down the revolving door between Congressional staff and executive agencies and the private sector; members of Congress themselves should be barred from federal lobbying for a LONG-TIME; spouses should not be allowed to earn a second income by cashing in on a husband or wife's political office.
All of these are much more problematic cases.
The thing that gets me about this case is the fact that Rahm tried to push a stronger candidate out of the Democratic Senate race in an attempt to mollify Specter and in order to retain Sestak's hard-won district in the House. I think he exercised poor political judgment. As far as legal questions go there's no issue. As far as ethical questions go, this one does get close to the line on Rahm's part. Sestak should actually be applauded for saying no.
The defense is that politics in itself is not a crime. Horse-trading, earning chits, dispensing chits, are part of the nature of any political system.
"Material consideration" usually means an exchange of money.
In this case, the party leadership was trying to use its influence to shape the primary field. We still don't know what was offered -- if it was a non-paying seat on some board, then this is moot. Even if it was a position within the executive branch, I don't see the issue.
I'm much more concerned about the fact that we don't enforce clear cut cases of abuse.
e.g. Political staff shouldn't be telling the DOJ which US Attorneys to retain or fire mid-term. In the beginning of the term they might have some input, but they shouldn't be allowed to punish U.S. Attorneys for the failure to push purely politically motivated prosecutions. We should be closing down the revolving door between Congressional staff and executive agencies and the private sector; members of Congress themselves should be barred from federal lobbying for a LONG-TIME; spouses should not be allowed to earn a second income by cashing in on a husband or wife's political office.
All of these are much more problematic cases.
The thing that gets me about this case is the fact that Rahm tried to push a stronger candidate out of the Democratic Senate race in an attempt to mollify Specter and in order to retain Sestak's hard-won district in the House. I think he exercised poor political judgment. As far as legal questions go there's no issue. As far as ethical questions go, this one does get close to the line on Rahm's part. Sestak should actually be applauded for saying no.
No comments:
Post a Comment