WP EXCLUSIVE: WH (Rahm Emanuel) asked Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about Senate run

[1776Forever]

Washington Post
By Greg Sargent | May 28, 2010; 11:35 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/

....According to the sources, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked Clinton and his longtime adviser, lawyer Doug Band, to talk to Sestak about the race. It's unclear right now whether the White House will say that Clinton was asked to suggest specific administration positions for Sestak, whether Clinton floated positions on his own, whether Clinton discussed other options not related to the adminstration, or whether employment even came up at all in the talks.

UPDATE, 12:02 p.m.: Here's the official response from the White House counsel on what happened. The White House says, as noted above, that they asked Clinton to suggest to Sestak an unpaid advisory board position.

The White House's response says no Secretary of the Navy gig was discussed, and that this sort of offer has happened numerous times in past administrations.

Also: Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, says there's no "there" here. This couldn't be bribery, she says, because the position was unpaid.

Beyond that, Sloan adds, the Federal bribery statute requires an offer of something of value in exchange for an official act. Sloan says that not running for Senate would not constitute an official act in any case, even if a paid position were offered in return for dropping a run for office.

And: Sam Stein has more new detail, including the interesting fact that the White House looked into this and reached its conclusion over two months ago, making one wonder why they didn't put this to rest earlier.

[MH1]

1. NYT article

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

[MH1]

2. This issue is not just about Sestak.

Isn't it interesting that the right-wingers (and their allies on certain "liberal" websites, ahem) have been focusing on Sestak rather than the broader question?

As chief of staff and previously as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Mr. Emanuel has not been shy about trying to steer party nominations to those he considers the stronger candidates. The White House under Mr. Emanuel has also leaned on Gov. David Paterson of New York to drop out of this year’s gubernatorial race, which he eventually did under a cloud of scandal. And Mr. Emanuel’s deputy, Jim Messina, suggested the possibility of an administration job to Andrew Romanoff if he would drop his challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet in a Colorado primary, the Denver Post has reported, citing unnamed sources.

Whether that constitutes ordinary political horse trading or crosses a legal line has been debated in Washington for months. Democrats and some Republicans have said it is hardly unusual for presidents to offer political appointments to clear the way for allies. But Republicans have suggested such actions may constitute a crime.

Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, and all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have separately requested the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor.

However before we rush to support the right wingers in taking out Rahm, we should further note:

The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel ... also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

It only becomes a 'crime' when it happens in a Democratic administration and the right wingers don't have anything better to chase after? But do they REALLY want to go down this road? Do they REALLY want to set a precedent that all such horse-trading is illegal?

[FreeJG]

5. Rahm is a DINO .....period

[notadmblnd]

3. Is Rahm Emanuel working for Republicans?

[Hubert Flottz]

4. Can you believe these republican scoundrels trying to undermine

our CiC when we are in a WAR on two fronts?

They are providing aid and comfort to the terra-ists!

[zazen]

6. this is such a NON story; the Repubs are beyond pathetic

Operatives at all levels discuss ad nauseum who's most likely to win and try to influence people to influence people to influence candidates to run or not run or run here or there or now or later or whatever. This is the same as, Rahm asked Clinton to ask Sestak if he felt the Repubs might be able to dig up any scandal on him, or Rahm asked Clinton to ask Sestak if he thought Sestak could raise enough money. Big f-ing deal. It's strategizing. Happens all the time.

[howaboutme]

7. Sestak was candid and a truth teller.....

a very uncommon trait (and one I fully respect) among political hacks and politicians always more concerned about saving face and protecting position of Party and peers. They are typically experts at talking through both ends of their body, while saying nothing and lying while claiming straight faced they are telling the truth. I simply don't trust Rahm Emanuel to look after either Obama or vast membership of the Democratic Party.

Quid pro quos happen daily between politicians and contributors and power mongers but rarely do we ever hear about it from one of the participants.

[1776Forever]

8. I agree unfortunately - Check out this blog from 2006 on Rahm - It was prophetic!

Rahm Emanuel: Democratic Time Bomb
by RJ Eskow | September 24, 2006 - 9:26am

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/947

....On the other hand, his (Rahm's) strategy of targeting key races makes a lot more sense to me that Dean's 50-state strategy, although there's an argument to be made for bringing the fight to every race, too. The mixed strategy that Emanuel and Dean forged through Cold War-like diplomacy may be the best way to go in the long run.

But what is the long-term impact of a Democratic Congressional victory, if it will ensconce the likes of Rahm Emanuel at the heart of party power? The Democrats lost Congress because they appeared fearful, poll-driven, and opportunistic.

Paradoxically, acting with integrity wasn't only the right moral and ethical stance. We've learned from recent elections that it would also have been the best electoral strategy. Harry Truman said it best: "In a race between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican wins every time."

If a confluence of events and Republican ineptness hands control of Congress back to this bunch, and they don't act with more conviction and courage than they've shown so far, they'll just lose it again - and the nation will suffer in the meantime.

If they're even paying attention, Emanuel et al. probably dismiss criticism from people like Willis and me as meaningless baying from the blogospheric fringes. That's because they fail to see that their cynicism may be doing long-term damage to their party, at its base. The Democratic faithful may begin to suffer from might be called "Pete Townshend syndrome": "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

If that's the case, an Emanuel-driven victory may do severe damage to the Party's core. Their party-bossism is a ticking time bomb at the heart of the Democratic Party. I don't want them to lose this November. Far from it. But they ignore these warning signs at the party's peril.

[Bluebear]

9. .

[Divine Discontent]

10. hmm... K&R

it's nice to see such clarity coming from them all of a sudden. I hope this continues, because having the WH admit to what they do makes people trust them more, even if what they admit to was 'behind the scenes'. B*sh would never admit to anything...

[howaboutme]

11. Right on

It is the lying BS that politicians always do that has eroded all confidence in Congress and government. Only when they begin telling the truth instead of lying and posturing can we ever begin to trust them. If they made a mistake on this then admit it. Typically it would go a long way to saving face and regaining trust instead of attempting the cover-up.