Is Congressman Joe Sestak Protecting a Felon in the White House?

Conservative Examiner ^ | 5/27/2010 | Anthony G. Martin

[Welshman007]

The U.S. Code specifically forbids anyone from seeking to tamper with an election by offering a bribe or anything else of value or substance to a candidate. This is known as 'quid-pro-quo.' And it is a serious offense for which a person who is convicted of the crime could spend up to 5 years in prison.

Yet Sestak is stonewalling on who offered him such a deal at the White House and the specific job that was offered, with many speculating it was the job of Secretary of the Navy.

The White House also continues with its stonewalling on the issue, claiming that 'nothing inappropriate took place' in its conservations with Sestak.

However, that mere statement alone raises a serious problem. Why was the White House engaged in conversations with Sestak in the midst of a campaign in which the candidate was seeking to unseat a veteran Senator that Obama wanted to win?

How could the White House claim that nothing inappropriate took place when the very fact that Sestak was engaged in conversations with Administration officials during a hotly contested campaign is a highly suspicious act in and of itself?

Why would the White House even wish to talk to Sestak at all when it had clearly thrown its support to Specter?

Someone in this sordid mess is lying. And there are only 2 choices--Sestak or Robert Gibbs at the White House, who as press secretary must state to the public whatever he is instructed to say by the President and his advisers.

[sportutegrl]

He's gonna wish he had taken that job offer come November.

New offer: keep your lip shut and you can still get the 'thing' we talked about earlier. - Rahm.

[ETL]

>Is this on videotape?
>Sestak saying this?

Here are some more videos:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sestak&aq=f

[avacado]

"This issue has been resolved, we won, no more questions for the day."

[Sudetenland]

Nope, David Gregory asked him straight up: ""Were you offered a job and what was the job?" and he said flat out "I was offered a job and I answered that honestly. But to go beyond that doesn't serve any purpose."

[Sudetenland]

Most Some of us understand sarcasm when we see it (well at least I understood what you were saying). :)

[Mr. Wright]

Yes, I actually was a bit upset that someone would possibly think that I may be an “Obama” plant . . . anyone who knows Mr. Wright, knows better.

[Mr. Wright]

Move on - nothing more to see here folks!!

You are very wrong sir. I am only being cynical — in giving all on Freeper the State-run media’s approach to this entire issue. That is, and will be, their template on the Sestak issue.