One fat question

There is a mountain of questions concerning this Sestak affair, the possible felony at the White House? And like the big cherry on top of the whipped cream, there is one fat question? And nobody seems to want to ask it? More about it later.

Yes, this is the job-dangling deal. Where the White House’s Rahm Emanuel got Bill Clinton to offer a position to Rep. Joe Sestak. To get him to not run against Senator Specter? Because the White House figured they could always count on Specter’s vote on thorny issues.

Problem is that offering a job to a guy to drop out of an election is a felony.

Not a big deal. That’s what the White House insisted last week. Happens all the time? Lots of presidents have done the same? Yeah, yeah.

So here are a few of the questions? Along with the fat one.

If it was not a big deal, why did Sestak clam up? He first said the White House offered him a job if he would drop out. Then, he shut up. Refused to say a word until the White House did. Now, why do you suppose he clammed up? Why did he have to wait for the White House? Do you suppose he maybe did not know what the story was until the White House told him what it was? Why, how could you think such a thing?

The White House says it only offered him a slot on some advisory board. It pays nothing. No big deal? Question: Why would this guy drop out of a race for the Senate to sit on a minor advisory board? The Senate seat is worth gravy. The board is worth crumbs. Politicians have no appetite for crumbs.

In addition, Sestak could not take that seat on the advisory board. He is in the House. It is illegal for a House member to sit on that board. Oh, oh. The story starts to leak? So, why do you suppose the White House says it offered something worth virtually nothing, to get Sestak to drop out?

Question: The press started asking the White House about this several months ago? If it was no big deal, why did the White House clam up about it? It refused to answer the questions? Point blank refused? Why? The White House says there is nothing here? So why do you suppose they refused to talk about it?

Question: Why are they stonewalling now? They made their statement. It has more holes in it than your tennis racket. Press Secretary Gibbs agrees it does? When the press asked him about the holes he stonewalled. He said “I’ll have to ask counsel for a better answer.”  Now why would he have to check with counsel over something so insignificant? At least the White House says it is insignificant.

And here is the fat cherry question:  The White House says it was insignificant. Nothing unusual. Nothing improper. So why, then, did they get Bill Clinton to approach Sestak? Why get a former President to do such an unimportant job? Obama and the President don’t seem to like each other. Why would he and Rahm want to ask a man who is as busy as Bill to do this picayune task? Do you suppose Rahm was too busy to pick up the phone? Why couldn’t Obama phone Sestak? Oh, that’s right, it was unimportant. So unimportant you ask a former President of the United States to phone? What do you think?

Here is a question anybody can easily answer. Picture the President and Rahm figuring out this strategy to get Sestak to drop out. Imagine one of them saying “This mission could be illegal. It could be a felony. Whoever does it – if he’s caught – could end up before a grand jury. He would have to lie to that grand jury? He might have to lie to the American public? Who on earth could we ask to do such a terrible thing?”

Bingo! High fives! “Of course!  Let me get Bill on the phone.” 

From Tom … as in Morgan.

For more columns, for Tom’s radio show or his new TV show (and to write to Tom):


Today's Other Stories

© 2018 Snyder Communications/The Evening Sun
29 Lackawanna Avenue, Norwich, NY 13815 - (607) 334-3276
Create an Account Forgot Password Help
pennysaver logo greatgetaways logo
We're on Facebook