Do You Believe The Sestak Story?

May 28, 2010 by  
Filed under HughHewitt.com Blog

OK Hughniversians, what say you about the Sestak cover story? Perfectly arranged to avoid any charge of criminality, and using Bill Clinton as the cut-out, just brilliant.

Now, what about the job offer to Andrew Romanoff in Colorado? Did Clinton carry that offer as well?

Comments

50 Responses to “Do You Believe The Sestak Story?”
  1. Jack Lavelle says:

    If he is not already, Bubba will soon get tired of cleaning up after the Obama crew. He’s gotta be thinking, “Shoot, if Hillary was president I wouldn’t mind this duty. But then, if Hillary was president, we wouldn’t be having one Mickey-Mouse screwup after another.”

    Rahm has so many crises going that the Obama presidency is already going to waste.

    I’ve had the “Miss Me Yet?” George W bumper sticker on my SUV for a couple of months already. No one has flipped me off yet, so I sense it’s being well-received.

    • Thomas McPherson says:

      Let me think. Sestak says he was offered “a job.” He says it several times over the course of months. Gibbs stalls and stonewalls. Obama fumbles for words and stonewalls. Sestak’s brother meets with White House representatives. And then out comes the story that “a job” means a nonpaying position on an advisory commission. Yep, I’d say they did their level best to get everybody’s mind right on “facts” that conveniently skirt criminal intent. Oh, yeah, and as Rush pointed out today, who better to involve than someone stripped of his license to practice law because he has lied under oath?

    • Hugh Hewitt says:

      Don’t drive in Chicago Jack

  2. Mary Valaika says:

    Absolutely amazing. Nobody could believe that. Especially with Bill Clinton involved. Wonder if Hillary was part of the decision or if Bill did this on his own.

  3. bandit84 says:

    No I don’t, the reason being:

    if this was truly the case, why did they wait so long? The hassles this administration has brought upon itself is immense. This story only makes them look worse then they already do.

    The way I see it is that Rahm probably did offer the Secretary of the Navy position to Sestak, with the President’s permission of course, and then spent the next several months (after Sestak told the press) coming up with a good story.

    Why is it that Sestak would not tell everyone what was offered and who offered it? Conveniently, he came up with the same story today right after the White House released a statement.

  4. Mary Valaika says:

    And I wonder what Bill’s payoff was.

  5. larrydag says:

    Why hasn’t the position been revealed yet? So who’s lying, WH or Sustek? Why use an impeached President (for perjury) to do the dirty work?

    They say where there is smoke there is fire. Well I’m pretty sure I’m seeing flames underneath all of this smoke. In other words, no I’m not buying it.

  6. Frederick Huff says:

    Sestak would have needed more than a part-time non-paying job to abandon his Senate run. With his hard left voting record, he does not have job security representing PA-7. I think he decided to take his chances running for the Senate, knowing that he was likely to lose his House seat within the next couple of election cycles.

    • Hugh Hewitt says:

      This is the most obvious flaw in the story. Rahm of all people would think JS was willing to give up his ambition for PFIAB?

  7. Wendy Posh says:

    The quote from Churchill fits here Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
    Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
    Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

  8. Linda Johnson says:

    While this is all very interesting, it realy doesn’t matter because nobody is going to be able to do anything about it anyway.

    • Rick Franklin says:

      In order to do anything about it, the Republicans would have to gain control of both the House and the Senate. It’s possible, but we have a long way to go before November, and you have to believe that Acorn, Carville, SEIU, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are working behind the scenes and in front of the camera every way they can to manipulate the results.

      • Ross Vermeer says:

        Unfortunately, I think using Clinton as purported frontman was a clever move. If Republicans ever mustered the political will/resources needed to pursue this, Clinton provides a perverse sort of ‘corruption immunization’ to the whole affair.

        That is, many people would see ‘just another nasty partisan investigation of something Clinton did’, think ‘been there; done that; it wasn’t fun’, and tune out.

  9. Robert says:

    When I saw the headline this morning on Drudge that Clinton was involved, I thought it was a rumor or a joke. What a sleezy, petty political matter in which to become involved. Far beneath the stature of a former President. And it diminishes President Obama because it makes him appear weak – he has to call on Clinton to “fix things” for him?

    • Rick Franklin says:

      That particular former President did plenty while he was POTUS which was beneath presidential stature that this shouldn’t come as a surprise.

  10. Erik Eisel says:

    is there a precedent for an ex-president getting involved in the cover up of a sitting president?

    • Rick Franklin says:

      Ford/Nixon, sort of. The pardon meant that evidence wouldn’t be presented in open court.

      • Rick Franklin says:

        Oops. Backward example. Sorry.

      • Erik Eisel says:

        Actually, I was thinking of season 8 of “24,” sort of. In real life, I couldn’t think of any precedent.

        • Hugh Hewitt says:

          Only on 24. Ford had zero to do with Watergate and the pardon was given to end it, not cover it up

    • Michael Kennedy says:

      There have been instances where national security or foreign policy might have been affected. The former president may act at the request of the sitting president, even if he might not totally agree. Clinton has gone to North Korea and, of course, Jimmy Carter has involved himself without invitation. Domestic corruption or politics are areas where there is simply no precedent but Clinton set a new standard. There was corruption in the 19th century but the stakes were never this large.

  11. conservative_organizer says:

    Joe Sestak announced that the White House offered him a job with the implication that it was a quid pro quo in exchange for Sestak dropping out of the Senate race. Who would think Sestak would call the media at that time with that piece of news if it was for a minor non-paid advisory job in the White House?

    The Administration could have easily discredited the accusation when Sestak made it. Gibbs could have been pushed out front to mock Sestak for dramatizing a very innocent request for Sestak to serve in a minor role.

    Now, Sestak is the Democrat hope in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state for 2012 and a Senate seat that the Demos’ desperately need to hold on to in 2010. The question that Sestak brought up when “he didn’t matter”, all of a sudden matters very much to the Administration. Using approved Obama language, “let me be clear, the Democrats put themselves in a jam”.

    Now we witness a byzantine labyrinth of intrigue worthy of the “West Wing” or the board game “Clue” to cover-up a crime. And, to make the melodrama even more absurd, this Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight recruits the Mandarin of Past Democrat Power, the convicted perjurer philanderer –in-chief to pin the deal on.

    This bunch of clowns will discredit their Democrat past, successes and traditions to cling to their slippery hold on power. Bubba must have gotten some profitable deals signed off for clients to volunteer to play this over-the-top-role in this ridiculously incredible story.

  12. Clark Madsen says:

    Watching the coverage on the TV brings out more than a few questions. Does the WH’s statement ever make a declaritive statement that Sestak was never offered a job for dropping out of the race? The MSM seems tunneled visioned on Clinton – but the statement refers to discussions over a couple of months. With whom if Clinton made just one call? This really smells…the big question is not whether any crimes were committed or ethical lapses – the question is whether the MSM or Congress will have any desire to follow up.

  13. Christopher Morton says:

    All along I thought this was a nothing story, one I really just didn’t follow. But between the presser yesterday which sounded as if they were saying, “We will get back to you when we have a story that works” and then the “oh it was a Bill Clinton relay quote.” No – I don’t but it and it makes me think there is really something wrong here. Did they just get so drunk with power that they thought they could throw around promises of jobs to pick their senate, like the ancient court of Catherine the Great or something.

    Do I think this will sink his Presidency? No. I do think though this is disgusting even to the MSM, which means that the next one could finally fully expose this White House as one that even Hugh’s former employer President Nixon would be ashamed of.

    • Hugh Hewitt says:

      Do you think it can sink Sestak? Defintiely has hurt him out of the box and it is going to linger. White House safe as long as both Houses are in Ds’ hands.

  14. Henry Scharf says:

    As a former flag officer, Sestak is familiar with politics and how to survive in a large organization. Why did Sestak raise the issue in the first place, and then confirm it publicly, and now follow up by disclosing his brother’s call from the White House? It sounds like he was solicited, but knows better than to expose himself by getting down to specifics before he’s answering questions under oath. I may be wrong, but he almost seems to be begging to be placed under oath so he has the full protection of the law if he tells the truth. In the meantime he’ll be content to let the White House amateurs keep digging their own grave as they continue to dig their hole deeper with each successive denial and rationalization.

  15. Fred W. Manzo says:

    Sestak raise the issue because it gave him stature as an independent man of the people. “I turned down all sorts of great offers for the honor of working for you!” But, really, you send a Former President of the United States of America with such an insulting offer and when it’s turned down you don’t up the offer? Unbelievable. And just what was mentioned in all those other meetings the White House mentioned? The weather?

  16. caggersoc says:

    I know you’re going to all think I’m crazy but I think Bill C. is doing this to embarrass the heck out of Obama. Clinton really doesn’t care if he doesn’t look “post” Presidential – he likes attention and it will only help Hillary if Obama fails. I know Bill’s a smart cookie – this was not a mistake on his part. I’d say he planned it all to embarrass Barack Obama – and Rahm. It’s so Cliintonesque!

    • Hugh Hewitt says:

      This is the strange thing –empowering Bill with leverage before 2012 has even begun. I never thought Hillary would pull a Teddy, but if she wants to be VP, this goes a long way towards edging Slow Joe towards retirement, or as I argued a few months ago, a trade to SecState.

      • Michael Kennedy says:

        Remember that Sestak was relieved, so his political bone fides are not rock solid. Toomey is what the people want right now so I think Sestak is badly wounded by this. Republicans need all the candidates like Toomey they can find. They can still blow it.

  17. tginga says:

    I do not believe the story, especially after Byron York’s post that Sestak would’ve been ineligible for the job. However, I also do not expect the story to survive much longer: there’s no way Holder will do anything with it; Gibbs will not answer any more questions (did he ever answer any?); and anybody who does ask questions of Clinton, Sestak, or Obama will be deflected with references to the precisely- and narrowly-worded statements released yesterday.

  18. Michael Hartmann says:

    Wow! There’s a ton of responses for what I figured was a rhetorical question.

    • Duane Patterson says:

      that’s the beauty of the hughniverse. people actually do think here, and have reasoned opinions on stuff.

      • Michael Hartmann says:

        No… just seemed like an “OJ says he found the real killers: do you believe him” sort of thing.

  19. Walter Hagedohm says:

    If we are looking for a smoking gun in this case, we should check out the White House website for jobs gained or saved. The Democrats are not bashful about taking credit for any signs of life in the economy. A new job, any job, even if it is unpaid and undefined, would need to be counted.

  20. Rick Franklin says:

    If one sits on a board, commission, council, etc. for no pay, it’s not called a “job.” It’s a “position.” This not merely a dictionary definition, but is common English usage. Sestak repeatedly confirmed that he had been offered a “job.” At any time in the last eight-ten months, Sestak could have clarified that it was a position, rather than a job. The fact that he waited until the White House issued their lie implicates him in the cover-up.

    Issa is right to call for hearings. Hugh is right to suggest that Blago’s attorneys should call Sestak to testify.

    Not sure how this fits with the Constitution, but when there is suspicion of wrongdoing in the Executive branch, shouldn’t the Legislative branch have the power to appoint a special counsel? Or to compel the AG to appoint one?

    • Michael Kennedy says:

      I think we all know he was offered Sec Navy but maybe there was a fumble and the appointment had been filled already. This crew is just incompetent enough to do that.

  21. Jonathan Plaster says:

    I think it’s much more likely that Sestak simply exaggerated the circumstances of the meeting to make himself look good. It doesn’t alter the underlying hypocrisy of the Obama camp one bit, but since the whole country is now eunred to political sleaze it’s not going to play in Peoria like an actually felony might have.

  22. Carolyn Strong says:

    The “nothing improper” statement reveals the true moral character of the chicago machine in which obama & rahm are deeply entrenched. Did Obama and Rahm really believe having an outsider help would make it legal? How can Clinton offer a job when he is not a part of the administration… Sestak had it clear in his mind the ‘administration’ offered the job. If this never gets to the special prosecutor, we can only hope that the middle section of the political spectrum sees that the obama way includes sleazy, cheating political moves to gain an end that justifies the means. Clean up washington? Ha! What a joke.

  23. John Schroeder says:

    It’s too perfect a story – a cut out and no money involved. Nothing is ever that neat. So no, I don’t buy it. What Clinton is up to is anybody’s guess.

    What Sestak is up to is easy – he’s ticked at Obama for trying and wants to see him squirm.

    • Mary Griswold says:

      My bet is that there will be a Democrat Presidential Primary in 2012. Bill and Hillary are laying the groundwork for her run as we speak. Also watch Evan Bayh. He probably isn’t colluding with the Clintons, but I suspect he also wants to make a run. He might be able to run as the candidate not soiled by the “Chicago way” or previous scandals.

  24. David Bockstanz says:

    Bill Clinton is the ‘Luca Brasi’ of this Administration

  25. Donald Amis says:

    Oh, what tangled webs we weave . . . . . It now turns out that the the “position” on the Intelligence Advisory Board (IAB) is limited to non-USG employees, by law, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. (Apologies for shouting.)

    This means that Sestak could not have remained in the House, as the WH asserts they wished, and concurrently have sat on the Board. This raises one of two possibilities, or one possibility and one probability. The probability is that the WH gang that can’t shoot straight were not aware of the law when they came up with the story about the job offer being the non-paying position on the IAB. The possibility is that they WERE aware of the law and intended to do a “Lucy with the football” thing on Sestak after they got Specter safely across the finish line.

  26. Rick Sawyer says:

    This administration’s non-transparancy is the only thing about it that’s transparent.

  27. Dave Ackley says:

    No, I do not believe the “Clinton did it” cover up. The WH ignored this story for months until it finally had enough legs that they had to deal with it,then put together a story that is falling apart within hours. The WH is simultaneously arrogant and naive in the belief the the MSM will buy their story and that they can just move on. This isn’t over.

  28. esintheus says:

    Call for a full investigation of Sestak, Romanoff, or whoever, and end the discussion. As of right now, they’re only distractions from the larger picture.

  29. ted trepanier says:

    Get Sestak under oath and see what happens. I would assume he would tell the truth then. Campbell? You listening?

  30. Witty Username says:

    I’m sure he just misspoke.

  31. Witty Username says:

    I also think this is likely to be part of a wider power play in the Whitehouse between Axelrod, Jarret and Emmanuel. Be interesting to see who their fall guy/girl will be.

Important Links
Lileks Private reserve
Duanes World
Hugh Hewitt Store
  • RSS Hugh Hewitt Blog

    • More from Mark Steyn on “The [Un]documented Mark Steyn” October 23, 2014
      In response to the terrorist attack on our neighbor and staunch ally to the north, I’ve invited Mark Steyn back to discuss the West’s paralysis in the face of Islamist radicalism on Thursday’s show.  Mark was a guest for two hours on Monday (transcript here), but it was mostly happy talk –show tunes and “cultural arcs” for the most part. Mark, on a book tour […]
    • Kobani, Kay Hagan, Ben Bradlee and Marty Baron October 22, 2014
      First, here’s the transcript for my two hour interview with Matk Steyn from Monday’s show.  Thanks to Duane for posting it so quickly. Next, read this key piece from the Wall Street Journal on the battle for Kobani by By Adam Entous,  Joe Parkinson and Julian E. Barnes. It is behind the paywall, but seriously folks, you have to read the WSJ so subscribe. Nor […]