Skip to comments.
EXCLUSIVE: White House asked Clinton to talk to Sestak about Senate run
Washington Post ^
| May 28, 2010
| Greg Sargent
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 ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: iwpredicts; sestak; sestakgate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-319 last
To: Hoosier-Daddy
Issa is fighting pretty hard on this. If the Repubs keep getting in front of a mike and ask why the MSM is ignoring this, and Rush, Beck et al keep at it, if nothing else will get our base out, out of shear disgust, and keep the Dims at home.I admire Darrell Issa. Met him at a reception years ago when he first ran for Congress. He's a good guy. Very ambitious too.
However, if our "base" needs this case to motivate them to vote in November, we're in big trouble.
301
posted on
05/28/2010 11:41:09 AM PDT
by
Wolfstar
(Note to rigid ideologues: Your own point of view in a mirror is quite a limited window on the world.)
To: penelopesire
That’s for sure! I made the comment, “She’s waaaay past her Botox touchup appointment!”
302
posted on
05/28/2010 11:44:58 AM PDT
by
top 2 toe red
(Not supporting a corrupt, Marxist, Socialist President makes me a racist?!? Then a racist I am!!!)
To: Bitsy
It sure took a long time to come up with this convoluted tale, didn’t it?
303
posted on
05/28/2010 12:01:56 PM PDT
by
sijay
To: silverleaf
exactly.
In order for Clinton to have offered a job he must of got the go a head form the white house and Rahm could only give that authority from obama.
304
posted on
05/28/2010 12:13:49 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: maggief
anyone noticed how the MSM is hardly covering this except FOX?
305
posted on
05/28/2010 12:14:33 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: surfer
306
posted on
05/28/2010 12:15:37 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: maggief
President Clinton, please remember that you’re under sworn oath to tell the truth. Now President Clinton, have you ever lied under oath?
307
posted on
05/28/2010 12:23:06 PM PDT
by
Gator113
(OBAMA THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE..... IMPEACH Obama NOW..)
To: maggief
I notice that most of the soccer players don’t look too happy to see EITHER of them.
308
posted on
05/28/2010 12:36:00 PM PDT
by
Ultra Sonic 007
(To view the FR@Alabama ping list, click on my profile!)
To: maggief; All
To: thouworm
I’d like to see phone records showing this conversation took place.
To: manc
“anyone noticed how the MSM is hardly covering this except FOX?”
I’m sure this story was concocted for the MSM. It doesn’t take much to fool them, so that problem has been explained to their satisfaction.
311
posted on
05/28/2010 1:07:11 PM PDT
by
sijay
To: All
To: sijay
indeed, the MSM will say OK enough now nothing to see move on.
313
posted on
05/28/2010 2:07:20 PM PDT
by
manc
(WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
To: maggief
314
posted on
05/28/2010 2:34:13 PM PDT
by
tina07
(In loving memory of my father,WWII Vet. CBI 10/16/42-12/17/45, d. 11/1/85 -Happy B'day Daddy 2/20/23)
I swear, in a fiendishly perverse way, we couldn’t have a better assist than what is coming out of the null set administration. Keep it up!!!
315
posted on
05/28/2010 3:58:59 PM PDT
by
FreeStateYank
(I want my country and constitution back, now!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
bump for bs meter graphic
316
posted on
05/28/2010 4:07:28 PM PDT
by
Christian4Bush
(Mike/Chris Wallace: Did you give in? Palin: "HELL NO!" 158 days til the midterms, if they're held..)
To: Genoa
Ha ha! Put Clinton under oath!!No, put Sestak under oath.
317
posted on
05/28/2010 4:43:21 PM PDT
by
JrsyJack
(a healthy dose of buckshot will probably get you the last word in any argument.)
To: mbarker12474
Crimes and Criminal Procedure - 18 USC Section 600
Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity
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 elect 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.
Source:
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html
To: SunkenCiv
Note: this topic is from July 21, 2006. Some more archival topics about Joe Sestak:
Clinton connection:
This list thanks to SunkenCiv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-319 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson