Another day and another set of challenges for BO!

What else could go wrong? A Chicago scandal? (Corruption trial distant, unwanted headache for president…)

Back in Chicago, the “Blago trial” is getting very interesting: Lawyers seek summaries of Obama interviews…

From day 1, I’ve had one question: Did BO know that his Senate seat was for sale? Did he know that his aides were involved in a potential crime to sell his seat?

I don’t know the answer. It’d help if Pres BO would make a statement and explain his involvement in the whole thing!

The hint of a White House bribe helped U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary for the Pennsylvania US Senate seat. But it will be a liability in the general election.

In an environment of massive anti-incumbent sentiment, it was advantageous to Sestak to differentiate himself from the self-serving Arlen Specter, who had switched parties to gain Obama’s sponsorship in hopes of saving his place in the Senate. One does not reach a high level in the military without being socially and politically prudent, and Sestak rose to the rank of three-star Admiral. He was also street-savvy enough to win two terms in Congress after that. Yet one can understand how he was tempted to let the story of the White House job offer, purportedly made last July, slip during the taping of a mid-February public affairs television show.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak … stands behind his contention that the Obama administration offered him a federal job if he would back away from a Democratic primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

“Yes, I was offered a job,” Sestak said….

Sestak said top party officials urged him to abandon his Senate bid when Specter joined the Democratic Party….

“Look, I am comfortable that I answered honestly,” Sestak said. “I said I would never agree with the type of deal that was done with Specter, so I would never go for a deal for myself.”

As early as last June, establishment Democrats were lining up against his then unannounced candidacy.

The public mulling of a Senate bid by Sestak – a retired admiral who’s just begun his second term in the House – is giving heartburn to many influential Democrats in Washington and in the Keystone State. Democratic leaders painstakingly worked to recruit Specter, potentially the Democrats’ filibuster-breaking 60th vote in the Senate, under the assumption that the former Republican would be able to coast through his adopted party’s primary on his way to another term.

Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell personified the great disconnect between Democratic incumbents and public sentiment, and proved himself a dismal prognosticator, when he assumed a loss for Sestak last June:

Gov. Ed Rendell (D) offered especially blunt words against a Sestak candidacy, telling MSNBC that “Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary. He would get killed. … [If] Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he is out of the Congress after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity.”

Now Sestak has handily won the primary, and the spectre of Specter has instead faded into political obscurity. Within Democratic circles, Sestak is diametrically opposed to the incumbent administration. He was a Hillary Clinton supporter. And there is a more painful fact, one that most political pundits overlook — Obama’s minion Admiral Michael Mullen, currently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was responsible for ending Sestak’s 31-year naval career.

Sestak’s Navy career ended in a less-than-ideal fashion. In July 2005 – within a week of Adm. Michael Mullen’s swearing-in as chief of naval operations – Sestak was dismissed as deputy chief of naval operations due to a “poor command climate,” according to the Navy Times…. The ouster represented a stunning (albeit temporary) reversal of fortune for Sestak.

In fact, Mullen fired Sestak his first day on the job, so it most likely was a political move, and not based on performance.

So much for the machinations of the Democratic primary. The story of the job offer, potentially a bribe intended to interfere in the electoral process, has taken on a life of its own. The White House denies it, but Sestak is sticking by his story.

Democratic Senate Nominee Sestak Repeats Claim: White House Offered Him Job to Drop Out of Race Against Specter
Friday, May 21, 2010

Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat, said again this week that the White House offered him a job to keep him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

Darrell Issa, a Republican Congressman from California, wants to find out whether Obama committed an impeachable offense.

Rep. Joe Sestak’s allegation that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Arlen Specter is a crime that could lead to the impeachment of President Obama, Rep. Darrell Issa said….

Issa, R-Calif., is one of many inside and outside Washington who want the Democratic Senate primary candidate to explain in detail what offer the White House made.

“It’s very clear that allegation is one that everyone from Arlen Spector to Dick Morris has said is in fact a crime, and could be impeachable,” said Issa, who is threatening to file an ethics compliant if Sestak doesn’t provide more details about the alleged job offer.

….Sestak, a former vice admiral in the Navy, first alleged in February that the White House offered him a high-ranking position in the administration last summer if he would sit out the primary against Specter, who won the backing of the White House and state Democratic leaders for switching parties.

If this event happened as described, here is the legal basis for impeachment:

U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4 – Disqualification – The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And here is the definition for impeachment:

Impeachment – Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

An article in the Washington Examiner details the dilemma facing Sestak in the general election:

During his bid for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania Sestak claimed that he was offered a job in the Administration if he would agree to drop his bid to challenge the incumbent, Arlen Specter.

This is a felony according to the law.

The U.S. Code specifically forbids anyone from seeking to tamper with an election by offering a bribe or anything else of value or substance to a candidate. This is known as ‘quid-pro-quo.’ And it is a serious offense for which a person who is convicted of the crime could spend up to 5 years in prison….

How could the White House claim that nothing inappropriate took place when the very fact that Sestak was engaged in conversations with Administration officials during a hotly contested campaign is a highly suspicious act in and of itself?

Why would the White House even wish to talk to Sestak at all when it had clearly thrown its support to Specter?

Someone in this sordid mess is lying. And there are only 2 choices–Sestak or Robert Gibbs at the White House, who as press secretary must state to the public whatever he is instructed to say by the President and his advisers.

If Sestak is lying and the entire story is bogus, then his chances of beating the Republican in the Fall will drop like a lead balloon. But if he is telling the truth and continues to refuse to name the parties at the White House who offered him this deal, then he is protecting a felon. Either way Sestak loses.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement:

This latest bribery allegation reflects a disturbing pattern by the Obama White House. We still don’t have all the details about involvement of Obama administration officials in the sale of Obama’s former Illinois U.S. Senate seat by Rod Blagojevich. And we still don’t have answers about the charge that Obama Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina offered a federal job to Colorado Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff to keep him out of the Senate race. There is also the report that President Obama tried to push disgruntled White House Counsel Greg Craig out of the White House by offering a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And now we have Joe Sestak.

The Chicago Machine has truly come to Washington.

Other than impeachment, other parts of the law might be relevant, according to Judicial Watch:

According to Judicial Watch, the following laws (among others) may have been violated in the Sestak matter: 18 USC 210: Offer to procure appointive public office; 18 USC 211: Acceptance of solicitation to obtain appointive public office; 18 USC 595: Interference by administrative employees by Federal, State or Territorial Governments; and 18 USC 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

That legal opinion is reinforced by Jay Sekulow of The American Center for Law & Justice, who said in an interview:

Well, article 2, section 4 of the Constitution is there for a reason. And … this is spinning out of control, as far as the White House is concerned right now. This is getting big coverage and it’s getting big coverage because something’s wrong here. It’s undercutting democracy if, in fact, offers were made to have someone not run.

And it’s not just one or two sections of federal law that’s been violated here. We’ve done an analysis of this. There could be four or even five sections of the federal criminal code that was violated….

These are serious allegations here. …. I understand why Mr. Sestak is trying to not say anything right now because he’s now obtained the nomination and he may want the White House support. But the reality is, somebody’s going to have to speak. And if, in fact, it is established that an offer of employment was made so that he would not run, that is interference with a political campaign, it’s interference with elected office, it’s the promise and solicitation of a job opportunity in order to forego something. That violates … not only the Constitution, it violates federal law….

The opinion by most legal observers seems to be that Obama must have known if a job offer was made, but that someone else in the administration will take the fall for it. We, as ordinary citizens, watch this play out and have to decide who is not telling the truth — a high ranking military officer or a community organizer from Chicago. Hard choice that!

Related:

Michelle Malkin — Obama responds to Sestak scandal: Just trust me

Dick Morris.com — PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR

Hyscience — Just ‘trust him’

UPDATE, May 28 3PM: I can’t do any better than this. Go visit The Right Side of Life to read Phil’s excellent compendium detailing the progress of the White House spin machine. They have elected to throw Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel under the bus on this one.

This whole affair stinks like a pile of rotting dead fish. The preposterous story being put out by the White House may prevent a legal challenge, but the whole mess will probably hurt the Dems in the general election. By saving Obama’s bacon, they have damaged their candidate and made him look like a liar.

Scott Brown has a fighting chance in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat from Massachusetts.

At first, it didn’t seem very likely that he could break the “filibuster-proof” Democratic majority in the Senate. Ted Kennedy won reelection in 2006 with 69% of the vote. In 2008 Barack Obama beat John McCain 62% to 36%. But the times are changing.

Since he tossed his hat in the ring, Republican Brown has closed the traditional gap with Democratic opponent Martha Coakley. By January 5, Rasmussen reported:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%.

That’s likely voters. But there’s more:

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley.

This is beginning to be doable. It is time, as they said in the days of steam railroading, to “pour on the coal.” And Coakley comes with dubious baggage — her negatives have been thoughtfully documented by Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, an excellent blog authored by Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson:

Martha Coakley’s Secret Bank Account  (12/31/09)

Martha Coakley’s Secret Bank Account – Part 2  (1/1/10)

Martha Coakley’s Political House On Fire (1/2/10)

“What’s Martha Afraid Of?” (1/3/10)

Coakley Glances at Her Watch – For Six Days (1/4/10)

What’s Martha Afraid Of? Part 2 (1/6/10)

We encourage our readers to visit Jacobson’s blog — it has an exciting “you are there” ambiance and he really covers the ground. The opposition is resorting to all sorts of dirty tricks — phony “push polling”, SEIU and MoveOn skullduggery — and he covers it all.

And here’s one more reason for the ladies to support Brown. Forgive me, dear readers, but I just couldn’t resist. When Scott Brown was a 22-year-old law student at Boston College, he posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmopolitan magazine.

There. That should drive our traffic numbers up today!

Related:

American Power — Scott Brown Within Reach in Massachusetts

UPDATE, 9PM: Public Policy Polling is now reporting that the race is a toss-up.

The Massachusetts Senate race is now a toss up.

Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47.

Here are the major factors leading to this surprising state of affairs:

-As was the case in the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia last year, it looks like the electorate in Massachusetts will be considerably more conservative than the one that showed up in 2008….

Dems are down one critical Senate seat until January, due to their own Machiavellian ways. Don’t you just love it when their “chickens come home to roost?”

After the last election, Dems assumed virtually dictatorial powers, because they controlled the presidency, had a majority in the House of Representatives, and had a filibuster-proof majority of sixty seats in the Senate.

With the passing of Ted Kennedy, they have lost that critical edge by one senate vote. Now the governor of Massachusetts is a Democrat, Deval Patrick, and under normal circumstances, as it is in most states, he could appoint a Democrat to fill the remainder of Kennedy’s term. But the Dems have already shot themselves in the foot.

Back in 2004, incumbent US president Republican George W. Bush was running for a second term. And John Kerry, a sitting Democrat senator from Massachusetts, challenged him. If Kerry had been elected president, that would have left his Massachusetts Senate seat vacant. And that would have been a problem for the Dems.

Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state. Seldom has the state gone for a Republican president — Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 in recent memory. But there was a rare period from 1991 to 2007 when the state had Republican governors (due to successive Democrat administrations running it down into junk bond ratings).

• William Weld from 1991 to 1997
• Argeo Paul Cellucci from 1997 to 2001
• Jane Maria Swift from 2001 to 2003
• Mitt Romney from 2003 to 2007

So in 2004 Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor. And he could have filled Kerry’s seat with a Republican. Not wanting to allow that normal political process to unfold, Ted Kennedy strong-armed a law through the heavily Democratic Massachusetts legislature to take the appointment power away from the governor and not allow a vacant seat to be filled by appointment:

Prior to 2004, the replacement would serve out the remainder of the term of that Senate seat and also be eligible to run for it at the next regular election. The 2004 law, now in effect, does not allow a temporary replacement to be appointed and instead requires that a special election be held within 145 and 160 days….

In the summer of 2004, the law taking away the governor’s power and providing for a special election was approved by the House 122-30 and the Senate 31-7. It was supported overwhelmingly by all but seven of the House Democratic representatives and senators and opposed by all Republicans. Democrats at that time feared that then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would have the opportunity to appoint a Republican to fill Sen. John Kerry’s seat if Kerry won the 2004 November presidential election. That GOP appointee, under the pre-2004 law, would have served in the U.S. Senate for four years until the regular Senate election in 2008.

During debate on the 2004 law, supporters of repealing the appointment power said that the temporary appointment system was archaic and takes power away from the voters by allowing a governor to make a political appointment that could last for several years….

So under the current law, which the Dems themselves voted in specifically to disadvantage the Republicans, the Dems cannot get back their sixty Senate seats before January. And this just at a time when they are trying to ram their unpopular health care bill down the American throat.

But now, in a revealing display of crass opportunism, the Dems are frantically trying to get legislation passed to allow the Massachusetts governor appointment power once again. We shall see. Even if they manage to manipulate the system one more time, it will take awhile, and that will be time taken from the health care battle.

---

An interesting sideshow will be the choice of appointee. Ted Kennedy had designated his second wife Victoria Reggie Kennedy as his successor in the family seat. If she is not interested, Ted’s nephew Joseph P. Kennedy II is a possibility.

Outside the family, names mentioned include US Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, US Rep. Michael E. Capuano, and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Former US Rep. Martin Meehan has also been suggested.

If a Kennedy offers, all bets are off, of course. The family seat is regarded as hereditary, such is the mentality of Massachusetts.