The White House attempted to push back against allegations that Barack Obama or his staff attempted to bribe Joe Sestak into withdrawing from the Democratic Senate primary by offering him a job, but they may be creating bigger headaches with their defense. Axelrod tells CNN’s John King that there is “no evidence” that the bribe attempt ever happened, even while he acknowledges that it would have been “a serious breach of the law.” In order to believe that there is “no evidence,” though, one has to discount the repeated direct testimony of Sestak himself (via The Daily Caller):It's a big, lonely ocean out there. Your call.
...
Witness testimony does qualify as evidence, however, and Sestak has insisted on multiple occasions that the bribe attempt happened. Either Sestak is lying, or Sestak is telling the truth. If it’s the latter, then someone in the Obama administration committed a felony, and perhaps more than one, by Axelrod’s own admission. If it didn’t happen, then Joe Sestak is lying. In order to defend itself, the White House has been put in the position of having to call its party’s nominee for the US Senate a liar.
56 minutes ago
18 comments:
Admiral, I'm thinking you need to come completely clean or your political career will be as dead as your Navy career.
And if the White House is political collateral damage... oh, well.
HAHA love it! Calling your party nominee a liar to save a President... hahaha too funnny
If Sestak is proven to have lied, which seems farfetched, it might be the most public display
yet of abandoning the naval academy's honor code. If an administration official, however, has equivocated, it is probably just the latest instance of http://tinyurl.com/ye4lkv6" REL="nofollow">this problem.
"Plausible Deniability" in action. Too cute and too clever for me. Do I think that "intermediaries" had discussions about alternatives for Sestak to withdraw from the primary? Sure. Last night David Gergen, who has a better knowledge about this kind of stuff than most people, said that the onus is on the Administration not Sestak to come clean about what actually went on and get by this.
Guess this is what happens when you set yourself up as a paragon of virtue and come face to face with the realities of politics.
Someone pass the popcorn. I'm gonna put another keg on ice.
As much as it pains me, I have to give credence to Sestak this time around.
Ya'll miss the REALLY interesting part...CNN putting the White House on the hot seat, and getting seriously adversarial with them? The world must be coming to an end, cause hell just froze over!
Love your last line.
I know that it's very, very wicked of me, but a little part of me was pleased when Sestak won the primary cause I knew that it meant a steady succession of entertaining posts from you right up until November. :)
Hmmm...you think they're falling out of love? Hope so.
I just watched John King have the same conversation and receive the same "non-answer" from Joe Sestak. You'd think all these smart guys would realize that it's the cover-up (or more importantly the appearance of a cover-up) that causes the real problems. CNN has decided to jump all over this...John King, Wolf Blitzer, and (after he gets tired of wading around in oily water) probably Anderson Cooper. How refreshing it would be to have somebody come forward and give a straight-forward answer about what actually happened and let the chips fall where they may. I'd suspect that Sestak might even get a positive bounce out of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJLejs_0ZR0&feature=player_embedded
Mashup of sestak and admin officials.
We need one of those "Lie to Me" guys to tell us what they see.
The trial lawyer in me loves it people get all weasely about "no evidence" and there is a real live witness who has built a record of saying the "incident" happened.
Now, Sestak has to (1) stick to his guns or (2) recant his previous words and suggest that he may have "misunderstood" what was being said or (3) ?
Not much cover here for anyone to hide under. If I were a retired admiral, I'd be real careful about having a security team nearby. You know in case of an outbreak of "the Chicago way."
Kevin, just from the little I know about body language, Sestak seems to be telling the truth. Though he may have answered HONESTLY, he hasn't answered COMPLETELY. No details have been forthcoming. He looks down and to his RIGHT when he answers... that's kind of where you look when you you have shame or sadness or disappointment on your conscience. (Down and to the left is where the liars look.) His shoulder shrug is the "what more can I say to convince you" kind of behavior.
Gibbsy answers in passive voice to many times. He may be telling the truth because he may be in the dark about the truth himself. A great trick for politicians... send out the guy who knows nothing to answer the questions. That way he can't look deceptive. Ignorant yes, deceptive no.
Yup.......
Nice campaign ya got there, Admiral. Shame if somethin' happened to it.......
Yeah, I noticed the emphasis on "no evidence" myself. There's a big difference between that, and "it didn't happen."
I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of "is," is... {/snerk}
I wonder if Obama will recruit Mullen to shoot down Sestak again
Please, let's not rewrite history for RADM Sestak (Ret.). The truth will always be that he was asked to retire one paygrade below what he was serving (and his time-in-grade waiver was denied) because of his abusive leadership style. He was cousneled, warned, and refused to treat his people with dignity and respect. And also don't ever forget the timing. ADM Mullen relieves ADM Clark as CNO on a Friday and then "fires" Sestak the following Monday morning. ADM Clark wouldn't pull that trigger........
As suspected, the new allegation is that "old Joe just heard what he wanted to hear"
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/it-depends-upon-what-meaning-of-job.html
Isn't it funny the number of former Navy members standing up to help old Joe.
Post a Comment