On Friday the Obama administration delivered its "official response" on what the president has dubbed "the Sestak issue." But that response, in the form of a memo by White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer, raises more questions that need to be answered before we can believe that what transpired was "fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements" as the administration claims.

Question #10
Why did Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania) say yes when asked if he was offered a "high-ranking federal job" to end his primary challenge?
If, as all parties now claim, the job offered was a non-paying position on a Presidential Advisory Board; why would Mr. Sestak say the offer was a "high-ranking federal job?" As a current member of Congress, Mr. Sestak certainly knows the difference between being tossed an insignificant bone and being offered a position at the highest level of government.

Continued...

Question #9
Why did Representative Sestak say yes when asked if he was offered a "high-ranking federal job" by the Obama White House?
If, as all parties now claim, the offer came from former President Bill Clinton; why would Mr. Sestak say the offer came from the Obama White House? Does Mr. Sestak honestly believe that Mr. Clinton is a member of the Obama administration?

Question #8
Why did Representative Sestak refuse to give details of the offer if, in fact, it was so "fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements?"
For months, Mr. Sestak coyly demurred each time he was asked about his own allegation that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration to drop out of the primary race. If, in fact, there was no "high-ranking federal job" offered and it was former President Clinton not an administration official who spoke with the candidate; why not be forthcoming and put an end to the speculation? Getting the answer to this question is not only important for the entire nation, it is especially important for the voters of Pennsylvania who will need to decide appraise Mr. Sestak's character before the November election.

Question #7
Why would anyone think a non-paying position on a Presidential Advisory Board would be enough of an enticement to drop a Senate campaign?
Especially since Mr. Sestak is already a US Congressman, why would anyone think this insignificant offer would convince him to abandon the very real chance of becoming a United States Senator?

Question #6
Why did White House officials contact Representative Sestak's brother (who is also Representative Sestak's top political adviser and campaign lawyer) shortly before they released their official response memo?
The day before the Bauer memo was released, Representative Sestak told reporters, "They got ahold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House...about what's going to occur." (source) The Congressman refused to elaborate on what was discussed or to whom at the White House his brother spoke. Why not? And why was it necessary to give the Sestak camp a heads-up on what was going to occur if all they planned on doing was telling the truth?

Question #5
Why would former President Bill Clinton agree to play go-between for the Obama administration?
There is plenty of history from the Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton presidential primary fight of 2008 to demonstrate why Mr. Clinton might work to undermine the Obama presidency. And there is plenty of personal history about Bill Clinton himself that would lead one to believe he is not the selfless party-first kind of politician who works behind the scenes and intentionally shuns the spotlight. So why would he play the role of bagman for the Obama administration now? Was he, or by extension his wife, promised any kind of political payback for his participation in the Sestak issue?

Question #4
Why did President Obama and former President Clinton have lunch the day before the Bauer memo was released?
Are these two political rivals now BFF's who will be getting together regularly for gab fests over cosmos and salad nicoise? Not likely. What exactly was discussed at last week's presidential luncheon and did it involved getting their Sestak stories straight?

Question #3
Why did it take over three months for the administration to respond to Mr. Sestak's allegation that a high-ranking federal job was offered in exchange for his dropping out of the primary race?
Republican Pat Toomey, Mr. Sestak's opponent in the November election, issued a statement shortly after the White House's official response saying, "If this explanation is as innocent as it looks, I sure don't know why it took three months to say so. The White House and Congressman Sestak should have been forthcoming a lot sooner." (source) I sure don't know why either. But I'd like to.

Question #2
Should what amounts to a self-serving statement by the would-be defendant's legal counsel be enough to resolve the Sestak issue?
The people deserve an independent investigation into the matter complete with a public report to the American people.

Question #1
Will there be an independent investigation into the Sestak issue or will all these questions remain unanswered?
Stay tuned!