More Details On Sestak Job Offer

We finally have more details on the Joe Sestak job offer, which I wrote about earlier today:
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/05/joe-sestak-job-offer-illegal.html

Basically, the White House says they didn't approach Sestak directly, but asked Bill Clinton to talk to Sestak, to make the offer. They claim it wasn't illegal because 1) the job offered didn't carry a salary, and 2) they used Clinton as an intermediary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006264-503544.html

But the White House denies that it acted improperly when it asked asked Mr. Clinton to talk to Sestak about dropping his ultimately successful challenge to Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat whose defection gave Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

"We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law," White House counsel Robert Bauer wrote in a memo today.

Bauer wrote that while "options for Executive Branch service were raised" with Sestak last summer in an effort to "avoid a divisive Senate primary," the positions discussed were advisory and uncompensated. In addition, he wrote, White House staff did not discuss the matter with Sestak, opting instead to ask Mr. Clinton to raise it with him.

Okay, let's look at the second claim first. They claim that, by using Clinton to do the actual contact, that removes any possible illegality. But go to my post from earlier today (link above) and read the statute in question. It contains the phrase "directly or indirectly." That means it doesn't matter if the White House contacted Sestak directly or used an intermediary, if the underlying action was illegal, then it would still be illegal.

What about the second part? They claim that because the position offered wasn't a paid position, then it "doesn't count." The statute is a bit vague on this, not limiting itself to compensation or employment. It says: "any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit." The position offered wouldn't be considered employment, compensation, or contract. It COULD be considered a "position," "appointment," or "other benefit." Possibly.

Sestak was not actually offered one, single position. In fact, they "explored options" to see what might be workable.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

Among the positions explored by the White House was an appointment to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which provides independent oversight and advice the president.

Now let's look at that position. That spot would definitely be considered an "appointment," and I personally would consider such a position to be "a benefit," if for no other reason than that an advisory position offers political clout and influence.

Sestak has confirmed the White House account of what happened.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006300-503544.html

"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background," Sestak said. "He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."

Now look at the facts as we know them. The White House, in the person of Rahm Emmanuel, asked Bill Clinton to find out if Sestak would abandon a run for Senate against Arlen Specter if he (Sestak) were appointed to a Presidential advisory position. Sestak was aware that this was a legitimate offer originating from the White House.

As far as I can tell, what they are describing still fits under the statute in question as an illegal act. Whether or not it can be laid at the feet of the President or not is less clear... I haven't seen a single report that mentions anyone higher than Rahm Emmanuel.

So those who think the recent admissions "prove" that nothing illegal occurred are fooling themselves. True, the statute isn't enforced very well, but that doesn't mean it's not still a law. All that happened today was that the defendants were identified, pleaded not-guilty, and told their version of events.

So. Obama will not order an investigation, nor will he allow his underlings to order one. This is exactly WHY the position of Special Prosecutor was created, to investigate wrong-doings by the very government that refuses to investigate their own illegality. So let's get the SP appointed and started, and let's see if he can discover what really happened and who was involved.

Let's go, guys. Either we're a nation of laws or we're not.