Darrell Issa Responds to the Sestak News: "It's Clear They Can't Be Trusted" (Video)

hotairpundit ^ | 5/28/10 | HAP

[Talkradio03]

CNN Dana Bash: I just talked to Issa..."He believes that a law has been violated, a law that prohibits people in government from offering to somebody for political reasons, something of value, he believes that there was at least a misdemeanor" (Video)

[Linda Frances]

“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”

[Matchett-PI]

FOXNews.com - Perfect Timing for Obama on Sestak Report?

Poll

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/28/decide-sestak-obama-clinton-report-louisiana-gulf-spill/

[mlizzy]

Issa was just on Fox, and said “If Obama doesn’t take care of it [exchanging jobs for favors, etc.], I will.” I’ve never heard of him before. I liked his speak ...

[Gator113]

Sestak: “I did not have sex with that... er, uh, wait, what I meant to say was.....

[humblegunner]

Here’s the video link to save everyone a trip to a blog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaRr02Z1dzg&feature=player_embedded

[savedbygrace]

The idea that they offered him an unpaid ‘senior presidential appointment’ is BS. Two main reasons:

1) Why would they think an unpaid position would entice Sestak to give up the opportunity to be a U. S. Senator?

2) If the idea was that they wanted Sestak to stay in the House while he worked in the ‘senior presidential appointment’ position, then they were asking him to violate Art I Sec 6, which forbids a senator or congressman from accepting any such position while in office.

This afternoon, the WH is floating the claim that Obama didn’t know about any of this. Ha! That is so laughable it isn’t even funny. The way they’ve done this, it is implausible deniability for Obama.

[Newton]

I think my cat could have come up with a better story.

[Rock N Jones]

1) Why would they think an unpaid position would entice Sestak to give up the opportunity to be a U. S. Senator?

This excuse is an inexcusable lie which no one will believe. It is about an act that clearly is in violation of the law and not an exercise about what sex is. The only question now is where the buck stops!

[savedbygrace]

If Rahm’s idea was to offer Sestak an UNPAID position on a presidential board, why would he NOT run it past Obama first, and why wouldn’t he make the offer directly, rather than through Clinton?

I know they’re painting the Clinton part with the idea that he worked in Clinton’s administration, so he might be amenable to a Clinton pitch, but he wouldn’t have been doing it for Clinton. He’d be doing it for Obama.

Whatever they did, they intentionally tried to put two degrees of separation from Obama, which makes it look like they were doing something illegal.

[randita]

That's it. I was looking for confirmation of what I thought HAD to be the case. Thanks for providing this:

2) If the idea was that they wanted Sestak to stay in the House while he worked in the ‘senior presidential appointment’ position, then they were asking him to violate Art I Sec 6, which forbids a senator or congressman from accepting any such position while in office.

[randita]

That's it. I was looking for confirmation of what I thought HAD to be the case. Thanks for providing this:

2) If the idea was that they wanted Sestak to stay in the House while he worked in the ‘senior presidential appointment’ position, then they were asking him to violate Art I Sec 6, which forbids a senator or congressman from accepting any such position while in office.

[Rock N Jones]

“so he might be amenable to a Clinton pitch” It is a dumb mistake to involve Clinton in my opinion. You wonder why Clinton would even involve himself. What is he doing there? Sestak is on record saying that he was offerred a “JOB” not a blow job! Any attempt at a Democrat style whitewash will only make matters worse for the democrats in November and if congress is controlled by Republicans then the Obama’s problems will be much more complicated. It is ludicrous to say Rham only was involved. This is not going away easy.