The great Joe Sestak whodunit

The “Jobsgate” story seems to have taken another turn. Readers will recall that Joe Sestak, the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Pennsylvania, stated back in February that the Obama White House offered him a job if he would decline to challenge incumbent Arlen Specter. The White House eventually admitted that it did indeed offer a position to Sestak and, in addition, offered a choice of three jobs to Andrew Romanoff if he would back out of the Senate race in Colorado.
In a memo written by the White House counsel’s office, the administration stated that Rahm Emanuel “enlisted” Bill Clinton in its effort to induce Sestak to concede the nomination to Specter. According to the memo, Clinton “agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak” potential job “options” that were to be considered as “alternatives” to his Senate candidacy. “White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak,” the memo insists.
But now, Bill Clinton is denying involvement in the effort to push Sestak aside. Campaigning for Sestak in Wilkes Barre, Clinton said, and then repeated, “I didn’t try to get [Sestak] out of the race.”
Clinton’s denial can, perhaps, be reconciled with the White House’s account. It is possible that Emanuel enlisted Clinton, that Clinton agreed to undertake the task, but that (for whatever reason) Clinton didn’t live up to his agreement.
But even this unlikely scenario leaves a problem for the administration. For Sestak has made it clear that someone, on behalf of the administration, offered him a position in exchange for bowing out of the race, and the White House agrees with him. If Clinton is telling the truth, then who made the offer? The White House says it didn’t and Clinton says he didn’t either. So whodunit?
Rep. Darrell Issa, who has been pursuing this matter, promptly took note of Clinton’s problematic denial. If the Republicans take control of the House, he will surely add this development to his list of areas to explore.
Via Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.

Responses