Scandal at the White House

by Chris Bounds on May 27, 2010

The Obama Administration seems to all but beg for questions of conspiracy.  As if there were not enough questions shrouding the White House already, scandal has now filled the air in Washington, which if true could be an impeachable offense.

This story starts with Arlen Specter.  Remember, he is a Pennsylvania Senator who jumped from the Republican Party to the Democrat Party last year.  He was a RINO (Republican in name only) anyway, but the jump shifted power to the Democrats in the divided Senate.  President Obama quickly embraced Specter as “one tough hombre” and pledged to give Specter his “full support in a Democratic primary.”  Obama stuck to that promise by campaigning for Specter, but even his speeches could not save Specter from losing the primary bid to Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak.  To make matters worse for Obama, Sestak is claiming that the White House bribed him with a job if he dropped out of the race against Specter – an offer he says he refused:

On Fox News, Rep. Sestak stood by his claim that he was offered a job to drop out of the Senate race.

If Sestak is telling the truth about being offered a job to drop out of the race and the Obama Administration knew about, it could be grounds for impeachment according to some experts.  Dick Morris, former White House adviser to Bill Clinton, said this last night on Fox New’s Sean Hannity show:

“This scandal could be enormous.  It’s Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it’s illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime….Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel…That is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

Karl Rove, White House adviser to President Bush, added to the discussion on Greta Van Susteran’s show On the Record:

“Look, that’s a violation of the federal code.  18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act…If Sestak is telling the truth, then somebody violated the law…Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody.  Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.”

Although Sestak has repeatedly made his claim, he has refused to provide any additional information other than he was offered a job to drop out of the race and that he declined that offer.  White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has also stonewalled the media regarding this serious allegation, refusing to deny or confirm the claim for 3 months:

David Axelrod had about as much information to provide to CNN’s John King, stating that he was briefed that White House lawyers looked into it and said that everything was “perfectly appropriate”:

So if I am understanding this, something did happen, but nobody wants to say what happened.  Is this Obama’s Watergate?

Michelle Malkin goes into more detail about Sestak and the White House’s stonewalling over this alleged crime.  There are a lot of questions that need to be answered here.

Mr. Sestak – why are you being tight lipped on this?  You made a claim that could be a breach of federal law, so back it up with proof!  Who offered you a job?  What job was offered?  When did this offer take place?  What records do you have that show this took place?  You cannot try and act like you are taking the moral high road by denying an illegal offer, making it public, and then being quiet about the details.  It either happened or it didn’t – let’s hear it!

Mr. Gibbs – stop stonewalling.  Have you looked into this or not?  Repeating “I have nothing else to add…”  like a broken record is not an answer.  What measures have you taken to look into this allegation?  What did David Axelrod mean when he told John King at CNN that White House lawyers looked into it and everything was “perfectly appropriate”.  If everything was perfectly appropriate, what was it that was appropriate?  What was said, to whom?

Will we get these answers from the “most transparent” administration or will the shroud of conspiracy and abuse of power continue to grow?

Previous post:

Next post: