Call for Special Prosecutor to investigate White House on Sestak bribery claim

[Smurf-Herder]

GOP Lawmaker Darrell Issa Poised to Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate White House

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

"If the public doesn't receive a satisfactory answer, the next step would be to call for a special prosecutor, which is well within the statute," Issa told Hotsheet.

The California Republican has been pushing for the White House to provide details of conversations between Sestak and administration officials in the wake of Sestak's comment during a radio interview last month that he was offered a high-ranking administration job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Asked if that job was secretary of the Navy, Sestak declined to comment. His press secretary told CBS News that the lawmaker stands by his original statement that he was offered the job in exchange for an administration post. Sestak did not drop out of the race.

On March 10th, Issa sent a letter to White House lawyer Robert Bauer asking for details about communications between Sestak and the White House. In the letter, he pointed to statutes he said could have been violated if Sestak was offered a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would be given an administration job in exchange for leaving the race.

Issa said the move may have violated anti-bribery provisions of the federal criminal code as well as prohibitions on government officials interfering in elections and using federal jobs for a political purpose. Violation of each provision is punishable by up to one year in jail.

The White House did not respond to Issa's letter by its March 18 deadline. Reporters have asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about the inquiry on six occasions.

On February 23rd, Gibbs said he had not looked into the matter. On March 1st, he said he had not made any progress on it. On March 9th, he said he did not have an update with him. On March 11th, he said he did not have anything additional on the matter. On March 12th, he said he did not have any more information on it.

On March 16th, Gibbs finally addressed the situation.

"Look, I've talked to several people in the White House; I've talked to people that have talked to others in the White House," he said. "I'm told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."

On Monday, Issa issued a second letter asking who Gibbs had spoken to about the matter and the basis for his comment that the interactions between the White House and Sestak were not problematic.

In the letter, Issa said that Gibbs' comments that he is "collecting direct evidence from witnesses" implies "that the White House is allowing its communications staff to carry out investigative tasks ordinarily conducted by legal professionals in the Counsel's office. Such slipshodness has all the makings of a cover up."

In an interview Wednesday, Issa stood by the notion that the White House is engaged in a cover up.

"I believe not answering our questions when in fact they have asked and gotten them answered" meets the standard for a cover up, he said. He compared the Obama White House to that of former President Richard Nixon and said it was not living up to its promises of transparency.

"Democrats, when they were not in the White House, had real objections to that idea of, 'whatever I want to do is OK,'" he said, referencing objections to Bush administration policy. "The public has a right to know who asked what, when. A congressman has made an allegation that is likely a felony."

Issa said that if he doesn't receive "satisfactory answers" to his letter by its April 5th deadline, "then the next step would be to call for a special prosecutor to investigate."

He said it is now "a lot easier" for the White House to respond because Gibbs "has the raw information that we asked for." Asked if he expected his call for a special prosecutor to be answered, Issa said, "I'm a practicing Christian, I have always believed in the redemption of souls." He said that if the issue generates enough publicity Democrats may feel forced to appoint a prosecutor out of "the fear of the voters."

Issa said that while backroom dealing is not uncommon in politics, an explicit quid pro quo arrangement crosses the line, and that there is no way to know exactly what happened until either Sestak or the White House provides details. Asked why he was taking up the fight, he pointed to efforts by Democrats on the House Oversight committee to examine Bush administration e-mails and the Valerie Plame matter and said he had the right to look into any potential violation of the Hatch Act.

"I'm not going to let this issue go away between now and November until it's resolved," Issa said.

"I think an unanswered allegation of a criminal activity is one that even a back burner boil will eventually lead to steam rising," he added. "I don't believe the question will stop being asked until original source information is delivered."

Asked if he wanted to comment on Issa's intention to seek a special prosecutor in the case, Gibbs said he would say "nothing more than what I said last week."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001105-503544.html

[CommonCents]

Democrats don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption. If they did, John Murtha would have never died a representative in congress.

[Smurf-Herder]

Democrats don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption. If they did, John Murtha would have never died a representative in congress.

If this pans out, it means someone's career. If Obama knew, then it's grounds for Impeachment.

[mrmeangenes]

Wow !!

Darrell Issa on the job !!

[bairdi]

Democrats don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption. If they did, John Murtha would have never died a representative in congress.
Republican don't either or Scooter Libby would have never served time for obstructing the investigation that would have sent Cheney to prison for outing a covert CIA agent.

[CommonCents]

Republican don't either or Scooter Libby would have never served time for obstructing the investigation that would have sent Cheney to prison for outing a covert CIA agent.

See what I mean about how the left needs lies to justify their beliefs?

Pathetic dude.

[CommonCents]

If this pans out, it means someone's career. If Obama knew, then it's grounds for Impeachment.

Either way, the main stream media will ignore the shit out of this story. You can bet the farm on it.

[bairdi]

See what I mean about how the left needs lies to justify their beliefs?

Pathetic dude.
Oh....Democrats "don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption" but Republicans do. Got it. :thumbsup:

[doctordog]

Oh....Democrats "don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption" but Republicans do. Got it. :thumbsup:

Well it took you long enough, but (exhale) I am glad you finally do get it.:thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

Oh....Democrats "don't give a rats ass about bribes and corruption" but Republicans do. Got it. :thumbsup:

Aren't you proving that, by bothering to post a reply, but one that ignores the topic of the thread?

[bairdi]

Aren't you proving that, by bothering to post a reply, but one that ignores the topic of the thread?
If you cannot recognize that the article is nothing more than politics as usual, then there is nothing I can post that will enlighten you. I see it as nothing more than the same fake outrage that the Republicans have been showing since they lost the election. It reeks of the same type of bullshit that the right always pulls. The point I was making was if the Republicans were as concerned with corruption during the Bush administration as they appear to be now then they would have expressed the same type of outrage when Libby obstructed the investigation into the outing of Plame, but they didn't. The hypocrisy of it all smells to high heaven.

[foxbaron]

maybe we need a special prosecutor to see what kind of deals were cut to cover Obama's birth certificate cover up and all his other records.

[bairdi]

maybe we need a special prosecutor to see what kind of deals were cut to cover Obama's birth certificate cover up and all his other records.
http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[Boogie man]

Republican don't either or Scooter Libby would have never served time for obstructing the investigation that would have sent Cheney to prison for outing a covert CIA agent.

You really need to get some new material. Those jokes are really old.

The facts of your "covert" CIA agent were smoked out a long time ago. Pitiful.

[bairdi]

You really need to get some new material. Those jokes are really old.

The facts of your "covert" CIA agent were smoked out a long time ago. Pitiful.
Nothing was "smoked out" because the investigation was obstructed. Thanks for providing us with more right wing talking points though. The fact is that Plame was a covert agent whether you choose to accept it or not. That's the great thing about facts. No amount of bullshit can change the truth.

[Boogie man]

Nothing was "smoked out" because the investigation was obstructed. Thanks for providing us with more right wing talking points though. The fact is that Plame was a covert agent whether you choose to accept it or not. That's the great thing about facts. No amount of bullshit can change the truth.

Oh bullshit. People knew what her job was. Just because some idiot said she was covert doesn't make it so. You repeat whatever crap you hear on your leftist sites. No one went to jail for "outing a covert CIA agent". Why?
Because she wasn't covert. Some people said she was. That doesn't make it so.

[Hawkeye2j]

Oh bullshit. People knew what her job was. Just because some idiot said she was covert doesn't make it so. You repeat whatever crap you hear on your leftist sites. No one went to jail for "outing a covert CIA agent". Why?
Because she wasn't covert. Some people said she was. That doesn't make it so.
It wasn't some idiot. It was the CIA that said she was. By outing her they not only put her in danger but anybody who worked with her.

[Smurf-Herder]

If you cannot recognize that the article is nothing more than politics as usual, then there is nothing I can post that will enlighten you. I see it as nothing more than the same fake outrage that the Republicans have been showing since they lost the election. It reeks of the same type of bullshit that the right always pulls. The point I was making was if the Republicans were as concerned with corruption during the Bush administration as they appear to be now then they would have expressed the same type of outrage when Libby obstructed the investigation into the outing of Plame, but they didn't. The hypocrisy of it all smells to high heaven.

Dismissing it is pointless.

If this turn out to be true, then the White House attempting to bribe a candidate in order to influence the outcome of an election would be a "High Crime" by definition; and if Obama was in any way connected, it's a Impeachable Offense.

This isn't politics as usual. This is the one thing that may prove fatal (politically) for Obama - more than anything else yet.

It really pisses me off how people like you try to hijack a thread by changing the subject.

[bairdi]

Oh bullshit. People knew what her job was. Just because some idiot said she was covert doesn't make it so. You repeat whatever crap you hear on your leftist sites. No one went to jail for "outing a covert CIA agent". Why?
Because she wasn't covert. Some people said she was. That doesn't make it so.
No one went to jail for outing a covert CIA agent because the investigation was obstructed by Libby who did go to jail. The investigation showed that Plame was covert. You can believe all the bullshit you want but facts are facts and they are in the report.

[Smurf-Herder]

No one went to jail for outing a covert CIA agent because the investigation was obstructed by Libby who did go to jail. The investigation showed that Plame was covert. You can believe all the bullshit you want but facts are facts and they are in the report.

Do you have the balls to actually argue on the topic of the thread?

[doctordog]

No one went to jail for outing a covert CIA agent because the investigation was obstructed by Libby who did go to jail. The investigation showed that Plame was covert. You can believe all the bullshit you want but facts are facts and they are in the report.

Notice the topic idiot, it is not about the CIA or its agents.

[CommonCents]

Do you have the balls to actually argue on the topic of the thread?

My money says "no".

[bairdi]

Notice the topic idiot, it is not about the CIA or its agents.
I don't believe I was addressing any comments to you.

[doctordog]

I don't believe I was addressing any comments to you.

Tough shit, stay on topic or you will be called out for your juvenile deflection:thumbsup:

[bairdi]

Dismissing it is pointless.

If this turn out to be true, then the White House attempting to bribe a candidate in order to influence the outcome of an election would be a "High Crime" by definition; and if Obama was in any way connected, it's a Impeachable Offense.

This isn't politics as usual. This is the one thing that may prove fatal (politically) for Obama - more than anything else yet.

It really pisses me off how people like you try to hijack a thread by changing the subject.
I wasn't changing shit. I was directly addressing the article you posted, particularly this part.

"Issa said that while backroom dealing is not uncommon in politics, an explicit quid pro quo arrangement crosses the line, and that there is no way to know exactly what happened until either Sestak or the White House provides details. Asked why he was taking up the fight, he pointed to efforts by Democrats on the House Oversight committee to examine Bush administration e-mails and the Valerie Plame matter and said he had the right to look into any potential violation of the Hatch Act."

[MintJulep]

Do you have the balls to actually argue on the topic of the thread?:lmao2: :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

I wasn't changing shit. I was directly addressing the article you posted, particularly this part.

"Issa said that while backroom dealing is not uncommon in politics, an explicit quid pro quo arrangement crosses the line, and that there is no way to know exactly what happened until either Sestak or the White House provides details. Asked why he was taking up the fight, he pointed to efforts by Democrats on the House Oversight committee to examine Bush administration e-mails and the Valerie Plame matter and said he had the right to look into any potential violation of the Hatch Act."

But that's a side issue (the Plame comments), when you consider the gravity of the potential charges involved (in the main topic). Anything involving Plame isn't on the same level as bribery for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.

[bairdi]

But that's a side issue (the Plame comments), when you consider the gravity of the potential charges involved (in the main topic). Anything involving Plame isn't on the same level as bribery for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election.
Issa's Call for a Special Prosecutor: Does It Have Merit?

Mar 26 2010, 12:11 PM ET
Is there merit to the call by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel broke the law by offering Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) an administration appointment in exchange for Sestak's not challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary?

The White House has kept mum on Issa's charges, aside from a cursory comment from the press secretary, and an official declined to comment for this post. The attorney general, Eric Holder, would be in a position to make the call, but he would probably consult the White House before making a decision that could bear directly on how the Oval Office functions.

The practice that Issa objects to is common and not unusual.

Now, trading an administration job -- a thing of value -- for a political favor might well constitute bribery. It is also very common. A Nexus search turns up numerous examples. In 1981, President Reagan offered S.I. Hayakawa, then California's senior senator, a job if he declined to run for reelection. We know this because Reagan's chief political adviser admitted as much on the record.

In 1997, then-Massachusetts Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger negotiated a Justice Department post while he decided whether to run for governor. The Clinton White House did not want him to make that bid -- they wanted to clear the field for Rep. Joe Kennedy.

(Remember when William Weld was nominated to ambassador to Mexico? Same reason, same motivation. Jesse Helms scuttled this, but for reasons having nothing to do with presidential political interference.)

More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.

Here is the relevant section of the U.S. code:

Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States

But the text of the law (a misdemeanor) allows the White House to provide a much more benign narrative. Sestak was qualified to be Navy secretary; he was offered the job and did not take it. Nothing was exchanged; though the political impulse to keep Sestak happy and satisfied and not a Senate candidate was probably Emanuel's primary intent, it would be difficult for anyone to disentagle the practical from the political. Also, Sestak wasn't threatened with any harm: he knew that the White House supported his opponent. He was only offered an inducement. (The Justice Department has prosecuted people under this law just once: in 1955, when folks were paid in order to promote Post Office employees. It's a misdemeanor.)

Still, another law, (18 USC 595) makes it illegal for any officer of an executive branch agency acting in his executive capacity from interfering in a political race. On its face, though, this would seem to prohibit President Obama from campaigning for any candidate, since he is always acting in his executive capacity unless he temporarily transfers power to the Vice President. Obama, in supporting, say, Michael Bennet over Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, is providing Bennet with a substantial thing of value directly related to job as president. It would be foolish to interpret the statute this broadly, but it follows logically. (For financial purposes, political events are segregated from general treasury funds, but the cost of the enormous presidential entourage is borne by taxpayers.)

Issa may be on firmer ground with 18 USC 600, which bans the offering of any political appointment as a reward for supporting or opposing a candidate for office. This statute is fairly plain. But if enforced, then you'd have to get rid of the ambassador corps. This statute may be unconstitutional if it were ever challenged. And the Justice Department has already concluded that political appointees have broader discretion because a degree of political loyalty may be part of their job competencies.

All of this assumes that Sestak's account is correct.

I suspect that Sestak is telling the truth. It would not surprise me if White House lawyers are figuring out whether there is merit to Issa's claim, or whether, given the Obama administration's promise to hold itself to a higher ethical standard, more internal guidance on such matters might be necessary.

Numerous press accounts testify to its ubiquity in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. No special prosecutor was ever appointed in those cases; no one was ever punished. It's important to decouple the legal issue from the ethical issue; the Justice Department won't make distinctions between the Bush administration's conception of ethics and the Obama's administration's declaration that its ethical standards are higher. They'll try to see whether the facts as constituted could be forced into the letter and spirit of a law and game out whether a prosecution could be won on its merits.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/issas-call-for-a-special-prosecutor-does-it-have-merit/38064/

[Smurf-Herder]

Issa's Call for a Special Prosecutor: Does It Have Merit?

Mar 26 2010, 12:11 PM ET
Is there merit to the call by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for a special prosecutor to investigate whether White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel broke the law by offering Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) an administration appointment in exchange for Sestak's not challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary?

The White House has kept mum on Issa's charges, aside from a cursory comment from the press secretary, and an official declined to comment for this post. The attorney general, Eric Holder, would be in a position to make the call, but he would probably consult the White House before making a decision that could bear directly on how the Oval Office functions.

The practice that Issa objects to is common and not unusual.

Now, trading an administration job -- a thing of value -- for a political favor might well constitute bribery. It is also very common. A Nexus search turns up numerous examples. In 1981, President Reagan offered S.I. Hayakawa, then California's senior senator, a job if he declined to run for reelection. We know this because Reagan's chief political adviser admitted as much on the record.

In 1997, then-Massachusetts Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger negotiated a Justice Department post while he decided whether to run for governor. The Clinton White House did not want him to make that bid -- they wanted to clear the field for Rep. Joe Kennedy.

(Remember when William Weld was nominated to ambassador to Mexico? Same reason, same motivation. Jesse Helms scuttled this, but for reasons having nothing to do with presidential political interference.)

More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.

Here is the relevant section of the U.S. code:

Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States

But the text of the law (a misdemeanor) allows the White House to provide a much more benign narrative. Sestak was qualified to be Navy secretary; he was offered the job and did not take it. Nothing was exchanged; though the political impulse to keep Sestak happy and satisfied and not a Senate candidate was probably Emanuel's primary intent, it would be difficult for anyone to disentagle the practical from the political. Also, Sestak wasn't threatened with any harm: he knew that the White House supported his opponent. He was only offered an inducement. (The Justice Department has prosecuted people under this law just once: in 1955, when folks were paid in order to promote Post Office employees. It's a misdemeanor.)

Still, another law, (18 USC 595) makes it illegal for any officer of an executive branch agency acting in his executive capacity from interfering in a political race. On its face, though, this would seem to prohibit President Obama from campaigning for any candidate, since he is always acting in his executive capacity unless he temporarily transfers power to the Vice President. Obama, in supporting, say, Michael Bennet over Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, is providing Bennet with a substantial thing of value directly related to job as president. It would be foolish to interpret the statute this broadly, but it follows logically. (For financial purposes, political events are segregated from general treasury funds, but the cost of the enormous presidential entourage is borne by taxpayers.)

Issa may be on firmer ground with 18 USC 600, which bans the offering of any political appointment as a reward for supporting or opposing a candidate for office. This statute is fairly plain. But if enforced, then you'd have to get rid of the ambassador corps. This statute may be unconstitutional if it were ever challenged. And the Justice Department has already concluded that political appointees have broader discretion because a degree of political loyalty may be part of their job competencies.

All of this assumes that Sestak's account is correct.

I suspect that Sestak is telling the truth. It would not surprise me if White House lawyers are figuring out whether there is merit to Issa's claim, or whether, given the Obama administration's promise to hold itself to a higher ethical standard, more internal guidance on such matters might be necessary.

Numerous press accounts testify to its ubiquity in both the Bush and Clinton administrations. No special prosecutor was ever appointed in those cases; no one was ever punished. It's important to decouple the legal issue from the ethical issue; the Justice Department won't make distinctions between the Bush administration's conception of ethics and the Obama's administration's declaration that its ethical standards are higher. They'll try to see whether the facts as constituted could be forced into the letter and spirit of a law and game out whether a prosecution could be won on its merits.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/issas-call-for-a-special-prosecutor-does-it-have-merit/38064/

I hadn't heard of the other cases until now. But I still think this needs to be looked into; and the people can decide when all the facts are out.

[mrmeangenes]

Either way, the main stream media will ignore the shit out of this story. You can bet the farm on it.

Gee ! Why do you suppose they would ignore a story involving someone as credible as Darrell Issa ?

I know ! I know !

It's either a plot..........or their car is missing.

[Smurf-Herder]

Gee ! Why do you suppose they would ignore a story involving someone as credible as Darrell Issa ?

I know ! I know !

It's either a plot..........or their car is missing.


Don't you mean someone as credible as Sestak? The story originated with him.