Let me get this straight: The president’s chief of staff dispatched a former president to talk to an aspiring senator about dropping his primary bid in return for … a spot on some no-name unpaid advisory board? Does that sound remotely plausible? (Surprisingly, lefty sedition expert Joe Klein says no, before quickly adding that it doesn’t matter anyway.) Does that even square with what Sestak’s said in the past about having been offered “a job”?Not only does it not square with Sestak's previous statements, the story makes no sense. Are we to believe that an unpaid position on some advisory board would be incentive enough to induce Sestak to drop out of the primary race? And why would the White House release a statement that doesn't change anything? Prof Jacobson:
The Obama administration memo supposedly vindicating the administration actually should be Exhibit A in a criminal case, because the White House admits to the offer and that it was for the purpose of convincing Sestak to withdraw.I believe the memo is what amounts to a confession that a crime was committed. The relevant section of the law that applies:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.The White House "explanation" doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it stinks. Rather than shrink the story, they expanded it. Stupid.