Jump to content

Obama's Watergate?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Was there deeper meaning to that statement?

 

Is this a race thing or a stealing our money through taxes thing you're wondering about?

 

Either way it was neither, just an observation on who the vice president is and the scariness of even the slightest possibility of him becoming the guy in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the White House is releasing its statement today that Emmanuel asked Bill Clinton to talk to Sestak. Somehow I don't think dumping this info on the front end of a 3-day weekend is going to bury this story, especially because it adds the Clinton intrigue to it. It's one thing if they sent Bill from accounting to talk to him, but Bill Clinton? Where is Bubba gonna hide? He can't. And once Sestak responds to this, which he's probably going to do today, the press will chase down Clinton, then Emmanuel, and then this could actually start getting ugly.

 

And let me add that I understand this happens all the time and this is the way politics works, etc., but my interest is more in how this supports something I believe is the root cause of most of this administration's problems; it thinks it's invincible, because, y'know, "I'm the president," as we're so often reminded. When you pile the oil spill response and Sestak on top of high unemployment, poor economic numbers, extention once again of unemployment benefits (what is it...over two years now?), you almost can't blame Obama for blowing off Arlington this weekend and sending Biden in his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I KNEW this would play out like this. The Cliff Notes version is that the White House just offered him a job. Not to get him out of the race...it just so happens that withdrawing from the race would be a consequence if he accepted.

 

It's dirty pool but unless someone has a memo from Obama titled "Let's offer Joe this job so he'll drop out of the race," they will be able to "It depends on what is is" their way out of this.

 

All this will help Sestak because he refused to go along and won. He's now looking like the ultimate OUTsider because Washington didn't want him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the White House is releasing its statement today that Emmanuel asked Bill Clinton to talk to Sestak. Somehow I don't think dumping this info on the front end of a 3-day weekend is going to bury this story, especially because it adds the Clinton intrigue to it. It's one thing if they sent Bill from accounting to talk to him, but Bill Clinton? Where is Bubba gonna hide? He can't. And once Sestak responds to this, which he's probably going to do today, the press will chase down Clinton, then Emmanuel, and then this could actually start getting ugly.

 

And let me add that I understand this happens all the time and this is the way politics works, etc., but my interest is more in how this supports something I believe is the root cause of most of this administration's problems; it thinks it's invincible, because, y'know, "I'm the president," as we're so often reminded. When you pile the oil spill response and Sestak on top of high unemployment, poor economic numbers, extention once again of unemployment benefits (what is it...over two years now?), you almost can't blame Obama for blowing off Arlington this weekend and sending Biden in his place.

 

I know this is completely off topic but because of this we're having a hard time hiring right now. People are sitting back and collecting a guaranteed paycheck so why would they want to take a chance with a new career where the majority of your paycheck is not guaranteed (commission).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is completely off topic but because of this we're having a hard time hiring right now. People are sitting back and collecting a guaranteed paycheck so why would they want to take a chance with a new career where the majority of your paycheck is not guaranteed (commission).

 

It's Summer. Why go back to work when you can keep getting paid to do jack?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I KNEW this would play out like this. The Cliff Notes version is that the White House just offered him a job. Not to get him out of the race...it just so happens that withdrawing from the race would be a consequence if he accepted.

 

It's dirty pool but unless someone has a memo from Obama titled "Let's offer Joe this job so he'll drop out of the race," they will be able to "It depends on what is is" their way out of this.

 

All this will help Sestak because he refused to go along and won. He's now looking like the ultimate OUTsider because Washington didn't want him.

 

I'm not so sure about that. He's not been forthright with the truth. He has never mentioned who approached him. One can only hope that Tom Corbett - the PA State Attorney General will impanel a Grand Jury and depose Sestak and others, then seal the proceedings till after the November elections. The House would then take the matter up - if the GOP wins a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I KNEW this would play out like this. The Cliff Notes version is that the White House just offered him a job.

 

Oh no, it wasn't just a job. It was a lifetime opportunity to serve as an "uncompensated advisory board" member on an as yet to be determined board to buy a bridge spanning the East River.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, it wasn't just a job. It was a lifetime opportunity to serve as an "uncompensated advisory board" member on an as yet to be determined board to buy a bridge spanning the East River.

Thought it was the Schuylkill. Maybe that's why he didn't take it. :pirate:

Pat Toomey should hammer Sestak relentlessly about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear

 

If I can't blame it on Bush, I will find somebody else to pin the blame

Double credit for that ammo against that white B word who might dare to challenge me in 2012

 

:pirate:

 

You were funny before. I did a spit take with the "milka wha" comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this Sestak thing apparently won't go away, in spite of the WH attempt to dump their story the Friday of a long weekend. During this time, one thing kept entering my noggin'; they say Clinton did the deed, and then Sestak came out and started recalling the phone call from Clinton.

 

But the question I wanted to ask was "Was the Clinton call what you were specifically referring to back in February when you first admitted this in the Philadelphia interview?" It seemed pretty cut and dried when the WH announced it was Clinton, but when I heard Sestak respond later in the day, he sounded more like he was confirming the WH story and less like he was confirming that THIS was the offer he received from the WH to step aside.

 

But Politico is reporting here that Gibbs was asked this repeatedly today, and Gibbs now has to check on that.

 

The press secretary also demurred on whether offers made to Sestak in June and July of 2009 — as mentioned in the memo of explanation offered by White House counsel Robert Bauer — were made by former President Bill Clinton and whether there were multiple approaches to Sestak, as opposed to the single phone call he described. “Whatever’s in the memo is accurate,” Gibbs said, adding that he would “check.”

While seemingly illegal on a couple of fronts, I honestly don't see this issue as that big of a deal. But if it turns out the WH is walking that line between imply and infer on this, it WILL become a big issue by their own hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad form...may surprise some here coming from me but this stinks. Held off whether or not to say anything but this may have legs...I hope not what with the catastrophe in the gulf and other issues more important but we should expect more from our administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These continuing political pecadillos are classic "I can pi$$ farther than you can..." fodder for the politicians on the outside looking in. The very fact that they consume time and energy give evidence to the fact that neither side has the intelligence, nor the will, nor the stamina to attack the real issues of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's incredible to see the most common reaction from both the left and right in this thread is a kind of "Who cares...it's scummy but it's minor compared to other problems." That's a problem. I say investigate and bring it all to light. I don't care if it avoided the crime--they certainly didn't avoid the intent of that law, which is that you shouldn't interfere in elections the way Obama did.

 

In November, fire everyone you can.

 

!@#$ these !@#$s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt anyone remembers either story in July

Not so sure about that. I think all the responses from Sestak and the WH have been too cryptic to die. Granted, the oil spill could end up being on the front pages for months, and that could unseat it, but if Gibbs keeps answering Sestak questions with his snarky little "I'll have to check on that" responses, the questions will keep coming, and layers will be peeled back. And that won't be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...