What often spurs governmental investigations and convictions is usually not so the deed itself as the lies that unfold in trying to cover up the original deed or misdeed. It appears right now that the ranking White House staff is trying to mitigate the damage rather than correct the errors. It's already all over the tea party boards.
I do and I have seen a far more open and transparent government out of Obama than I ever did under any of his predecessors. For God's sake, he held a nationally televised health care summit. It is a good thing, too. You are already stretching a tenuous grasp on reality if you actually believe the things you typed.
Can you point out these boards to which you refer? I went looking for TP boards once and was unsuccessful, I would love to see what their conversations look like.
They really are not "boards" so much as email configurations. I can remember a time when you were invited to come aboard, but you passed up the opportunity. I don't know why you keep referring to me as delusional. I am merely observing and commenting on the possible outcomes. Another outcome is that this will all just blow over. How can you expect a rational discussion if you don't look objectively at the possibilities?
If you want truer samples than your spoiler, please use examples of spelling and grammar from my posts. They certainly are not perfect, but I do believe I have as much command of the English language as most posters here. BTW, many of the tea partiers with whom I communicate are more educated than I am.
I was only kidding thumbs. I know people who call themselves members of the teaparty that are highly intelligent individuals that I have the utmost respect for.
www.DickMorris.com SESTAK SCANDAL GROWS...AND STILL STINKS By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on DickMorris.com on May 28, 2010 The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute. But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel's request, he was Rahm's agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still "something of value" within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote. And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter's vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate -- all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place. In a previous column (read it at DickMorris.com) Dick and Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano suggest that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, now the Republican nominee for Governor, should empanel a grand jury to get to the bottom of this affair. Today's revelation makes this ever more urgent. The big problem with Morris' observations is that they are based on a New York Times story.
i think this is going to get incredible messy as we get into the fall political season. i said above that i think the suggestion of an unpaid advisory post is risible, but even if that's all it was, it looks like Rahm, if not Obama himself, is at risk. and what of Mr. Bill? will the most transparent administration in history have the balls to appoint a special prosecutor?
Got me. My cataracts are acting up again. That's one reason I have been less active and writing shorter responses. I'm scared stuffless over eye surgery in August and September, but I'll be glad to see details again. Thank goodness for the edit feature. That I am.
You post nonsense like this regularly, but never can back it up. Can you point to anything similar under the Bush admin? It doesn't have to be the same thing - just a true non-scandal that the other side made into a big issue and mentioned impeachment? In fact, we can specifically point to exact same situation with Judd Gregg and the lack of anyone having a problem with it in either party. And the fact that the "tea party boards are all over it" should clue you in to the motivations of the tea partiers that you seem to deny are partisan in any way.
Your Judd comparison is not germane because Judd already had his position of value. In fact, IMO he was trading down, so to speak, going from a U.S. Senator to a cabinet post. My observation was not that there were similar occurrences. My observation was that, had the same things happened but in different administrations, Batman, Sam Fisher et al would have been attacking rather than defending and Basso, RocketRick et al would have been defending rather than attacking. The board's viewpoints depend on whose ox is being gored.
Basso! Brutally true, but, again, Major missed the point. He has an overinflated perception of himself, but I still enjoy and learn from his opinions.
First off, most people think of cabinet post at the same level as US Senate - some higher (like Sec of State or Defense), some lower (like HUD). If nothing else, you are an executive in charge of something as opposed to one of 100 voices. Hillary didn't take a step down, for example. Second, Sestak would have been trading down from Rep to unpaid board member. How is that different? The basics were the same: the WH gave incentive to Judd to take the job in exchange for a political activity. Well, that flies in the face of reality, even as accepted by the GOP member trying to make this a story: When the president offered Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) the post of Commerce Secretary it was under an "agreement" (Gregg's word) that the governor of New Hampshire would appoint a replacement who caucuses with Republicans. Issa's office actually admitted that this deal was as bad as the Sestak exchange to Salon.com on Wednesday night. But no calls for an investigation have transpired. And yet, there's no evidence at all to support your position. Did any Democrats or anyone in the media attack Ronald Reagan for the exact same thing?
