Sestek-gate Investigation

[Mabus]

Joe Sestak White House Job Offer: Republicans Demand Special Prosecutor Inquiry - Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/26/joe-sestak-white-house-jo_n_590815.html)

An excerpt:

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are amping up pressure on the White House to divulge details of Rep. Joe Sestak's allegation that the Obama administration offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's race for Senate.

Seven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding the Department of Justice launch a probe into whether any illegal activity took place.
A copy of the letter (pdf format) sent to USAG Holder can be found here (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Letter_Holder_Sestak_100526.pdf).

It is quite possible that a felony (or more then one felony) has taken place, and it deserves investigation by a special counsel and grand jury.

[Clove]

Huffington Post? Really? Maybe we can something from MoveOn too.

[Parkbandit]

Huffington Post? Really? Maybe we can something from MoveOn too.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005850-503544.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/sestak-dodges-question-on-the-wh-and-quid-pro-quo-.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/23/white-house-stays-mum-sestak-job-offer/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1992153,00.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/05/26/sestak/

It's funny.. a search of "Sestak" on NBC News turns up 2 articles regarding the race.. nothing about this story.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/NBC.jpg

[Keller]

What does the Obama administration have to gain from helping Spector through the primaries?

[AnticorRifling]

Huffington Post? Really? Maybe we can something from MoveOn too.

I think you this post.

[Androidpk]

I think you this post.

I think you this post too.

[Clove]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005850-503544.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/sestak-dodges-question-on-the-wh-and-quid-pro-quo-.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/23/white-house-stays-mum-sestak-job-offer/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1992153,00.html

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/05/26/sestak/

It's funny.. a search of "Sestak" on NBC News turns up 2 articles regarding the race.. nothing about this story.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/NBC.jpgBoy you sure pwned me. Funny he could have used a better source and didn't but that wasn't my point. I mean it isn't like I suggested he use an equally biased source from the utter opposite side of the political spectrum or anything.

[radamanthys]

OMG I accidentally your whole post.

Sorry. :-(

[Parkbandit]

What does the Obama administration have to gain from helping Spector through the primaries?

There was probably some deal made with Spector when he "defected" to the Dems that Obama has to support him through the primaries.

These sort of backroom deals are made all the time.. difference is the "recipient" isn't usually pissed as hell like Sestak seems.

I think the important thing is Arlen Spector can now retire. I never understood why people liked him.. Republican or Democrat. The guy's values are completely based upon the polling data and who's in power.

[Parkbandit]

Boy you sure pwned me. Funny he could have used a better source and didn't but that wasn't my point. I mean it isn't like I suggested he use an equally biased source from the utter opposite side of the political spectrum or anything.

In this case, the source was meaningless because you could find out about it from sources across the political spectrum.

And the Huffington Post isn't a conservative blog... so not sure how moveon.org would be the opposite.

[Cephalopod]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jHLGI4LuUbY/S6uEW0k6uSI/AAAAAAAAA08/yYd5Wzr8Ncc/s320/laimbeer-sleestak.jpg

[Gan]

Nacho FTW!

On topic: This is going to be really interesting to see play out on the hill. I see a strong case of plausable deniability if someone is not made to fall on their sword over this.

[Cephalopod]

Nacho FTW!

On topic: This is going to be really interesting to see play out on the hill. I see a strong case of plausable deniability if someone is not made to fall on their sword over this.

Either Sestak is lying or someone in the White House did something very bad.

A third possibility, I suppose, is that Sestak isn't lying and was offered a job, but not as a concession for bowing out of the race.

[Keller]

A third possibility, I suppose, is that Sestak isn't lying and was offered a job, but not as a concession for bowing out of the race.

The funny part is that people will be indignant if there was a quid pro quo, but not if it was just an underhanded ploy to pull him out of the race.

That's what is so fucked up. Frankly, I don't have a problem with either situation. That is the way the world works.

Next thing you know, you're going to tell me John Wall's dad was offered a job as a contractor at a construction company that just so happens to be owned by a major Kentucky booster.

[Methais]

The funny part is that people will be indignant if there was a quid pro quo, but not if it was just an underhanded ploy to pull him out of the race.

That's what is so fucked up. Frankly, I don't have a problem with either situation. That is the way the world works.

Next thing you know, you're going to tell me John Wall's dad was offered a job as a contractor at a construction company that just so happens to be owned by a major Kentucky booster.

John Wall's dad was offered a job as a contractor at a construction company that just so happens to be owned by a major Kentucky booster.

[Keller]

John Wall's dad was offered a job as a contractor at a construction company that just so happens to be owned by a major Kentucky booster.

Call me Nostra-fucking-damas.

[Latrinsorm]

It is quite possible that a felony (or more then one felony) has taken place, and it deserves investigation by a special counsel and grand jury.Which felony, specifically? The only law cited in the letter is a misdemeanor.

[Kembal]

Either Sestak is lying or someone in the White House did something very bad.

A third possibility, I suppose, is that Sestak isn't lying and was offered a job, but not as a concession for bowing out of the race.

I'm almost certain it was the third one, and Sestak's just spinning it to be able to run as an outsider candidate. Worked pretty well also.

[Parkbandit]

I'm almost certain it was the third one, and Sestak's just spinning it to be able to run as an outsider candidate. Worked pretty well also.

How can you be "almost certain".. unless you are actually in the loop?

[Methais]

How can you be "almost certain".. unless you are actually in the loop?

Read Huffington Post of course.

[Gan]

Or watch Chris Matthews.

[Mabus]

Which felony, specifically? The only law cited in the letter is a misdemeanor.I stated it was "possible" (or "quite possible" to defuse the next line of attack).

Witness tampering is a felony under 18 U.S.C., and if Sestek was told to "drop it", "forget about it" or any other such nonsense (even without expressed intimidation or violence), and the case ends up in a federal investigation, a felony could have been committed.

Often the major crime is not in the act, but in the attempted cover-up.

[Keller]

I stated it was "possible" (or "quite possible" to defuse the next line of attack).

Attack? Seriously?

Why not just quote what you actually said, and not try to play the victim card as though someone correcting you misquoting yourself would be an "attack".

What a drama queen.

[Latrinsorm]

I stated it was "possible" (or "quite possible" to defuse the next line of attack).

Witness tampering is a felony under 18 U.S.C., and if Sestek was told to "drop it", "forget about it" or any other such nonsense (even without expressed intimidation or violence), and the case ends up in a federal investigation, a felony could have been committed.

Often the major crime is not in the act, but in the attempted cover-up.Oh, I thought you meant that if the allegations were true, then a felony would have occurred. I see what you mean now.

[ClydeR]

The White House Counsel issued a memorandum (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se) about it.

[Kembal]

How can you be "almost certain".. unless you are actually in the loop?

Because Reagan did the exact same thing in 1981?

Clearing the field is normal political procedure. And the WH had to do its best to do so for Specter, to live up to its end of the bargain when he switched parties. (I think anyone would've said that Sestak is actually the better candidate though, for the Dems.)

[Gan]

For Immediate Release
May 28, 2010

Memorandum from White House Counsel Regarding the Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak

MEMORANDUM FROM ROBERT F. BAUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak Recent press reports have reflected questions and speculation about discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak in relation to his plans to run for the United States Senate. Our office has reviewed those discussions and claims made about them, focusing in particular on the suggestion that government positions may have been improperly offered to the Congressman to dissuade him from pursuing a Senate candidacy.
We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.

Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false. The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26,2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.

Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that, as the Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.

Relationship to Senate Campaign. It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman. There was no such impropriety. The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House. By virtue of his career in public service, including distinguished military service, Congressman Sestak was viewed to be highly qualified to hold a range of advisory positions in which he could, while holding his House seat, have additional responsibilities of considerable potential interest to him and value to the Executive Branch.

There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se

[Gan]

Now a video of Sestak's interview (38 seconds in).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9BxRme-89Q

I guess one has to define 'job' and its use/intent with Sestak and Bill Clinton's meeting (De Ja Vu?).

What exactly are the laws that are being said to have been broken?

[Latrinsorm]

The Republican Congressfolk say US Code Title 18 Section 600 (promise of employment or other benefit for political activity), Mabus suggests Section 1512 (witness tampering) but I don't see it. I don't think an interview counts as an official proceeding or legal process, but I'm sure one of our lawyers can elaborate on that if necessary.

[Gan]

I can see the promise of employment issue. I cant see the witness tampering issue. I could also see something along the lines of attempting to tamper or alter an election if that's a crime.

[Kembal]

I can see the promise of employment issue. I cant see the witness tampering issue. I could also see something along the lines of attempting to tamper or alter an election if that's a crime.

Unpaid advisory position and he doesn't resign from Congress for it? I mean, it's a pretty weak inducement to get someone out of a Senate race, but I'm not sure that's a promise of employment.

[Parkbandit]

Unpaid advisory position and he doesn't resign from Congress for it? I mean, it's a pretty weak inducement to get someone out of a Senate race, but I'm not sure that's a promise of employment.

It almost sounds like a story that Obama and Clinton came up. Like you said, what kind of incentive for Sestek is that to quit a Senate race?

I believe that story as much as I believe Obama claiming he's been on top of the gulf oil spill from day 1.

[Gan]

The funny thing is that Sestak says it was someone from the Obama administration.

Obama's administration says Sestak met with Bill Clinton.

So which is it?

Clinton (Bill) is not part of Obama's administration.

[Kembal]

The funny thing is that Sestak says it was someone from the Obama administration.

Obama's administration says Sestak met with Bill Clinton.

So which is it?

Clinton (Bill) is not part of Obama's administration.

Last I checked, Sestak confirmed the administration's account.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/sestak-i-said-no-when-clinton-offered.php?ref=fpa


It almost sounds like a story that Obama and Clinton came up. Like you said, what kind of incentive for Sestek is that to quit a Senate race?

From what I understood, the administration didn't want to risk losing Sestak's House seat either at the time. It's a swing district. That makes sense to me, because the House is reasonably at risk of switching control this year, unlike the Senate.

[Parkbandit]

Last I checked, Sestak confirmed the administration's account.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/sestak-i-said-no-when-clinton-offered.php?ref=fpa


Shocking that a Democrat, running for the Senate, would confirmed the story given by the top Democrat. That seals it.. no way it could possibly be something else.. even though most agree it would be stupid for Sestak to accept such an unpaid position in exchange for dropping out of a race he was winning.



From what I understood, the administration didn't want to risk losing Sestak's House seat either at the time. It's a swing district. That makes sense to me, because the House is reasonably at risk of switching control this year, unlike the Senate.

We can only hope.. but let's be honest, instead of doing what they should be doing, the Republicans are doing what they always do.. nothing. These mid term elections should be slam dunks, but instead we have a bunch of pussies in the Republican party who would rather be politically correct than to tell it like it is.

[Kembal]

Shocking that a Democrat, running for the Senate, would confirmed the story given by the top Democrat. That seals it.. no way it could possibly be something else.. even though most agree it would be stupid for Sestak to accept such an unpaid position in exchange for dropping out of a race he was winning.

The only cabinet position that has been rumored (that I've heard about) about was Secretary of the Navy. (which I think we can all agree Sestak would be qualified for, as a retired admiral.) However, the administration had just gotten someone else confirmed for the position a couple of months prior to Sestak's conversation with Clinton. I don't think the administration could be that oblivious to even consider offering that position after just getting a nominee confirmed.


We can only hope.. but let's be honest, instead of doing what they should be doing, the Republicans are doing what they always do.. nothing. These mid term elections should be slam dunks, but instead we have a bunch of pussies in the Republican party who would rather be politically correct than to tell it like it is.

It took me a minute to figure out your statement, but I think you're saying that the Republican Party should man up and say that Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are what's killing the federal budget and that we need to consider cutting them severely?

[Parkbandit]

The only cabinet position that has been rumored (that I've heard about) about was Secretary of the Navy. (which I think we can all agree Sestak would be qualified for, as a retired admiral.) However, the administration had just gotten someone else confirmed for the position a couple of months prior to Sestak's conversation with Clinton. I don't think the administration could be that oblivious to even consider offering that position after just getting a nominee confirmed.

So you believe the story that was given.. that Sestak was offered a non-paid advisory role to drop out of the Senate?



It took me a minute to figure out your statement, but I think you're saying that the Republican Party should man up and say that Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are what's killing the federal budget and that we need to consider cutting them severely?

Yes. I think we have an obligation to take care of those citizens in our society that cannot take care of themselves.. be it from a disability, old age, or whatever. I do not think we have an obligation to take care of those citizens in our society that could take care of themselves, they simply choose not to. What are we up to now.. 99 weeks of unemployment? WHAT THE MOTHER FUCK? If you can't find a job in 99 weeks, then you aren't trying or you are far too picky.

These socialist programs are not self sustaining. We need to DRASTICALLY cut spending right now.. not DRASTICALLY increase spending like Obama has done. Europe is going to be on fire soon.. and the socialist programs that got them into their mess are the same ones we're doing now. It's unsustainable.

[Kembal]

So you believe the story that was given.. that Sestak was offered a non-paid advisory role to drop out of the Senate?

I believe that Washington, D.C. leaks like a sieve. I haven't seen any other version of the story besides the unpaid advisory position, and the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy Secretary doesn't make logical sense, based on the timeline I put in my previous post. I haven't seen another position advanced.

In any case, I'm really not sure there's something criminal about clearing a primary field by offering positions, paid or unpaid. No one said a peep when Reagan did it, and he did it overtly to a sitting Senator, and it was a Ambassadorship. The law hasn't changed....why would it be criminal now?


Yes. I think we have an obligation to take care of those citizens in our society that cannot take care of themselves.. be it from a disability, old age, or whatever. I do not think we have an obligation to take care of those citizens in our society that could take care of themselves, they simply choose not to. What are we up to now.. 99 weeks of unemployment? WHAT THE MOTHER FUCK? If you can't find a job in 99 weeks, then you aren't trying or you are far too picky.

These socialist programs are not self sustaining. We need to DRASTICALLY cut spending right now.. not DRASTICALLY increase spending like Obama has done. Europe is going to be on fire soon.. and the socialist programs that got them into their mess are the same ones we're doing now. It's unsustainable.

That might make for a stark ideological difference that sharply defines the election. However, I expect that you're right, and the Republican Party will not take such a strong position.

[Parkbandit]

I believe that Washington, D.C. leaks like a sieve. I haven't seen any other version of the story besides the unpaid advisory position, and the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy Secretary doesn't make logical sense, based on the timeline I put in my previous post. I haven't seen another position advanced.

In any case, I'm really not sure there's something criminal about clearing a primary field by offering positions, paid or unpaid. No one said a peep when Reagan did it, and he did it overtly to a sitting Senator, and it was a Ambassadorship. The law hasn't changed....why would it be criminal now?

I don't think I ever said what happened was illegal.. because we don't know what really happened and what was really offered. I can conclude that an offer for an unpaid advisory position is a joke.. and either Obama is lying (which I'm leaning towards) or he didn't try to live up to his promise to Specter.



That might make for a stark ideological difference that sharply defines the election. However, I expect that you're right, and the Republican Party will not take such a strong position.

Of course not. The don't want to upset the elderly.. so we will continue to tell everyone that Social Security is just fine and we're putting money away for everyone in a lockbox...........

[Kembal]

I don't think I ever said what happened was illegal.. because we don't know what really happened and what was really offered. I can conclude that an offer for an unpaid advisory position is a joke.. and either Obama is lying (which I'm leaning towards) or he didn't try to live up to his promise to Specter.

I'll go with the latter of those two choices. Specter was a weaker candidate in the general election than Sestak, and pretty much everyone knew that.



Of course not. The don't want to upset the elderly.. so we will continue to tell everyone that Social Security is just fine and we're putting money away for everyone in a lockbox...........

Unfortunately, younger age groups don't vote in as large number as old people do, so the elderly dictate the political agenda more than makes long term policy wise.

Though it does make for funny newspaper stories when those that are post-65 that have joined the Tea Party movement realize that really cutting government spending means slashing at Social Security and Medicare. They can't handle the cognitive dissonance that follows. :)

[Gan]

Republicans are going to keep hammering away at the Joe Sestak job offer allegations.

Reps. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, and Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, sent another letter to White House Counsel Bob Bauer on Wednesday, asking the White House to disclose specifics about any job offer to Sestak (D-Pa.) in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.

By June 9, Issa wants the Obama administration’s legal records, memos to the press office, and e-mails and phone records in relation to the Sestak job offer. Issa and Smith also are asking for notes and transcripts of interviews with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, former President Bill Clinton, Sestak and Sestak’s brother Richard, who serves as his campaign manager.

“The American people elected a president who promised to change the status quo and business-as-usual practices of Washington. Has this White House become a part of the establishment they once opposed?” the Republicans wrote in the letter. “The Sestak matter represents a chance for this White House to live up to the high standard of transparency and accountability they set for themselves.”

Smith and Issa also accuse the White House of violating the criminal code, “tampering of evidence, witness tampering and evasion of the legal process” for dispatching Clinton to offer Sestak a spot on a presidential intelligence advisory board.

Sestak, who for months would not disclose any details of the offer, addressed it last week outside the Capitol in Washington. He answered questions and insisted that there was nothing unusual about his talk with Clinton; he said it lasted between 30 and 60 seconds.

Democrats have also been trying to get Sestak to dodge questions about the offer. Several of his Pennsylvania colleagues in the House have suggested he simply not answer questions about the offer, and one suggested he talk instead about the economy.

Aides to Sestak have also noted to reporters that he has never voluntarily brought up the offer during the course of the primary or general election and he has merely answered questions when asked.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38039.html

[Parkbandit]

I'll go with the latter of those two choices. Specter was a weaker candidate in the general election than Sestak, and pretty much everyone knew that.

Then why did it take Obama such a long time to actually come out and tell what was offered? If it's a non-paid advisory position, then no laws were broken... should have been a pretty simple statement to make.

[Parkbandit]

Looks like it's a habit of the Chicago Style Politics that is infesting our White House:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration dangled the possibility of a government job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

"Mr. Romanoff was recommended to the White House from Democrats in Colorado for a position in the administration," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. "There were some initial conversations with him but no job was ever offered."

The new revelation of a possible political trade again called into question President Barack Obama's repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.

The Colorado episode follows a similar controversy in Pennsylvania. An embarrassed White House admitted last Friday that it turned to former President Bill Clinton last year to approach Rep. Joe Sestak about backing out of the primary in favor of an unpaid position on a federal advisory board.

Sestak declined the offer and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter late last month for the Democratic nomination after disclosing the job discussions and highlighting it as evidence of his antiestablishment political credentials. He said last week he rejected Clinton's feeler in less than a minute.

In a two-page report on the Sestak case, the White House counsel said the administration did nothing illegal or unethical.

Republicans have strongly criticized the offer to Sestak and challenged Romanoff to answer questions about his own dealings with the White House.

"Romanoff would be well-served to explain all of the details surrounding his discussions with the White House, the positions they proposed and the individuals who contacted him immediately," said Amber Marchand, a spokeswoman for the Republicans' Senate campaign committee.

Unlike Sestak, Romanoff has ducked questions on the subject, and it was not clear how long his discussions with administration officials lasted. Also unlike Sestak, Romanoff was out of office and looking for his next act after being forced from his job because of term limits.

Romanoff had sought appointment to the Senate seat that eventually went to Bennet, publicly griped he had been passed over and then discussed possible appointment possibilities inside the administration, one of the officials said.

After being passed over for the Senate appointment, the out-of-power Romanoff made little secret of shopping for a political job. Romanoff also applied to be Colorado secretary of state, a job that came open when Republican Mike Coffman was elected to Congress. Gov. Bill Ritter again appointed a replacement, and again passed over Romanoff.

Next, according to several Colorado Democrats speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal negotiations, Romanoff also approached Ritter about being Ritter's running mate for Ritter's re-election bid. It was only after that attempt failed, the Colorado Democrats said, that Romanoff joined the Senate contest.

Romanoff still wasn't settled on the Senate race. When Ritter announced in January that he wouldn't seek a second term after all, Romanoff publicly talked about leaving the Senate race to seek the governor's office, though he ended up staying in the Senate contest.

Bennet has outpaced Romanoff in fundraising and support from Washington, although party activists attending the state party assembly last month favored the challenger by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent. The primary is Aug. 10.

Bennet was appointed by Ritter to fill out the final two years of the term of Ken Salazar, who resigned to become interior secretary.

Romanoff's campaign spokesman did not immediately respond to questions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100602/ap_on_el_se/us_colorado_senate

[Kembal]

Then why did it take Obama such a long time to actually come out and tell what was offered? If it's a non-paid advisory position, then no laws were broken... should have been a pretty simple statement to make.

They didn't want to affect Sestak's chances in the primary?

[Gan]

Do we see a trend here?

[Cephalopod]

Do we see a trend here?

Bush v2, business as usual. A disappointing trend, whether it's proven illegal or not.

[Latrinsorm]

Do we see a trend here?I see unsubstantiated and uncorroborated anonymous sources, the general gist of which is desperately seized upon in direct contradiction of the stated "facts".

So my answer is the same as Nachos' - disappointing business as usual.

[Gan]

Unsubstantiated - so far yes, but new stuff is surfacing every day. Unless you seem to think that there's a time limit for evidence discovered.

Anonomyous - you might want to reread the two related stories again. The sources so far are quite public.

Business as usual - so much for 'hope and change'.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Business as usual - so much for 'hope and change'.

Is that the slogan? I've been hoping for change since he started on the healthcare bill :/

I still like Obama in some regards, but for all his peacocking about being up front on things, he's just just as much a snake oil vendor as any of the others. That's the disappointing part for me.

[Cephalopod]

I should clarify my post, too. Whether or not anything illegal was done, what the White House has already stated, to me, reeks of the 'status quo' of Washington, which is what I find disappointing. I'm still supportive of Obama and I hope he gets his ass in gear... but I'm seeing a lot of missed opportunities so far.