Posted on 05/28/2010 7:09:26 AM PDT by maggief
Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.
But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement.
According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It's unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the adminstration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Yea sure.:)
From your post #30:
Richard Sestak, the congressman’s brother, who has served as his top political adviser and campaign lawyer, spoke with administration officials Wednesday, Joe Sestak said.
“They got a hold of my brother on his cell phone, 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 Richard.
~~~~~
From your other link at post #71:
Mr. Obama promised on Thursday to release an account of the matter, which White House lawyers have been drafting in recent days in consultation with Mr. Sestak’s brother, Richard...
” How does Slick getting Spector the nomination help the Clintons?”
Doesn’t make sense.
If true, RE knew Clinton had more influence over Sestak than the WH, but the Clintons do nothing gratuitously. In fact, the stakes might have been upped during lunch yesterday.
....and kept at Guantanamo.
Some longtime Freepers will remember that Joe Sestak was recruited by the Clintons to run against Rep. Curt Weldon. Weldon was the key investigator tracking down the "Able Danger" program, which supposedly had identified several of the 9/11 hijackers who were in the U.S. when Clinton was still President. There was the smell of a gigantic cover-up there to absolve Clinton of any responsibility for 9/11. There were allegations of Clinton moles inside the FBI who leaked to the media that they were going to raid Weldon's house just before the election. The Clintons raised literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sestak's campaign. And Sestak endorsed Hillary against Obama in 2008 and campaigned hard for her here in Pennsylvania.
Bill Clinton owes Joe Sestak, possibly more than we can even imagine if all of this stuff is true. But Sestak owes Clinton too, because he would never have been elected to Congress without the Clintons putting their massive fundraising operation behind him, and engineering the FBI leak just before the election. Curt Weldon was hugely popular and it is a Republican district.
And, of course, Rahm Emanuel is the nexus between the Clintons and Obama. He knows all about this whole thing. He knew that Sestak would not listen to a direct entreaty from Obama or anyone else in the White House. So he went back to Bill. The question is, why would Bill Clinton do this? Did he perhaps think that Sestak was on a political suicide mission at the time running against Specter, and he wanted to try to save his career? What's in it for Bill to do this, even as a favor to his old pal Rahm?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Situational ethics.
Moral equivalence.
There is a bright line between right and wrong.
If you aren’t sure if something is wrong you are in trouble.
There are laws and we can’t choose which ones we want to enforce or obey. That’s the Obama/Chicago Way
Not for me.
The cover up will be worse than the crime.
Good post.
Much as Gretel asked the more experienced witch to check the oven temp.
Lets deal with the Plausible bit. They ask a Former President of the United States to contact a Congressman to offer him an unpaid advisory position to the Whitehouse as an incentive for him to drop out of a Primary against Arlen Specter.
Mmmmm... lets see where that is on BS scale.
First. Any rational person who is inexperienced would know that such a position for a sitting Congressman is impossible because of Separation of Powers concerns. And low and behold later we are told the offer wasn't possible after all. Oh. And Clinton wouldn't know this. Hmmm. And why would the Congressman want this?
However, lets just deal with the facts. The Whitehouse has admitted to asking Clinton to ask Sestack to drop out and admitted that ideas were flouted about positions to offer him, one of them being this asinine bullc45p unreal lie of a distraction.
Now they have copped to the mechanism, now we only need establish that something of value was offered and they are hoping that folks won't chase this thread.
But, Sestack has implied several times that it was a Secretary position, mmmm... quite a different story.
All of this slings egg on both the WH and Sestack. But, there is more to come.. as this is a pattern of abuse, not an isolated event.
sestak said it was a “white house official”. the clenis is not a “white house official”.
OMG!!! OMG!!!!
“Situational ethics.
Moral equivalence.
There is a bright line between right and wrong.”
Sorry, but this is politics!
But seriously, the parties support certain candidates, and not others.
Via Twitter
stevebruskCNN Sestak, asked by CNN about the Clinton report, said “I’’ll have something for you later.”
half a minute ago via web
figures. I wonder if Sestak will cooperate. Get the Admiral under oath!
BUMP!
Maybe Rahm was wearing a simple blue dress???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.