Judging by this editorial, the Washington Post chewed on the White House memo written by White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer entitled “Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak,” and then swallowed it whole. The title of the WaPo editorial tells the story: “White House transparency could have ended Sestak ‘scandal’.”
The WaPo message: If the White House had only told the truth from the beginning, the whole episode could have been avoided. The lead paragraph of the WaPo editorial reads:
Okay, if all the facts are out, then we would agree: Nothing inappropriate happened. On the basis of the memorandum issued Friday by White House counsel Robert F. Bauer, the Joe Sestak job-for-dropping-out-of-Senate-race scandal is a non-scandal — except for the White House’s bungling of the episode. The unnecessary coverup, it turns out, is always worse than the non-crime.
To make its case that no crime was committed, the WaPo props up straw men by noting (1) that the Secretary of the Navy position had already been filled by the time Sen. Arlen Specter changed parties and couldn’t have been offered to Sestak, (2) that the position offered him would have enabled him to keep his House seat, (3) and that the position in question was an unpaid one.
From this, the WaPo concludes:
If that’s the whole story, this is not a scandal. Not a crime. Not even into an ethical gray zone… A little transparency early on would have gone a long way to making this story die down before it became a conflagration.
So, case closed, according to the WaPo. Particularly when the file slams shut on the first of a three-day holiday weekend. Here the WaPo is a mouthpiece for the Obama administration and virtually replicates paragraphs 3 and 4 of the White House memo, and implicitly affirms the White House Counsel’s conclusion in his paragraph 2:
We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.
It’s the fox investigating the fox. Meanwhile, Daniel Foster’s piece in NRO shreds the notion, found in White House memo paragraph 6, that, even if Sestak qualified for one of the two positions available on a Presidential Advisory Board, Sestak was not qualified for any of a “range of advisory positions,” as asserted by the White House Counsel.
But that’s not the worst of it for the White House. Bauer publically confesses, in the all-important paragraph 5 of his memo, that,
White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.
Oops. As for Bauer’s exculpatory claim of White House legal innocence because no staff member – read Rahm Emanuel – directly discussed options with Sestak… it won’t work.
A Big Journalism piece posted last May 25 entitled “Where Is The MSM’s Call For A Special Counsel In The Alleged Bribe Offered To Joe Sestak?” quotes paragraph 600 of the Federal Elections Campaign Laws:
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.
Clinton’s approach to Sestak clearly represented an indirect promise to the Congressman made on behalf of Rahm Emanuel specifically, and the Obama Administration in general. The inevitable question will be: What did the President know about this, and when did he know it?
Bauer’s final argument in his paragraph 7 is the childlike “they all do it” defense.
There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations – both Democrat and Republican, and motivated by the same goals – discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.
Ethics aside, there may be another problem with that last paragraph from Bauer. To date, the consistent storyline has been that Sestak was offered something, whatever it was, of value to drop out of the senatorial race, after he had already declared – on August 4, 2009 – as a candidate. If the Clinton conversation happened after that date, as it seems, somebody in the White House has an even bigger problem.
Compute the timeline for the bribe offer from this video clip:
The original question to Sestak from Larry Kane was, “Were you offered a job to get out of the race? He says “Yes.” Then, later, he tells the host of “The Ed Show, “I got offered that question after seven months.” Seven months after what? On its face, that means seven months after declaring his candidacy in early August, making the offer dated approximately early February 2010. The Larry Kane interview happened on February 18, according to Kane. By then Sestak was seven months past considering becoming a candidate.
Oops, again.
The extraordinarily talented Aretha Franklin offers us the question du jour concerning this White House memo and WaPo’s role in promoting it: