As often happens when government officials try to cover up their own wrong doing, the more they dodge and weave and lie the worse the situation becomes for them. In the case of the Sestak issue, the implausible explanation given by the Obama White House after over three months of stonewalling is starting to unravel in the face of just a few days of scrutiny.

Read more »

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.

Read more »

The Obama administration has launched a two pronged defense regarding what the president recently named "the Sestak issue". Did the White House offer US Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania) a job if he would drop out of his Democratic primary race with Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) in violation of federal law? According to White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer, it depends on what your definition of job is. And if Clintonesque word parsing isn't enough to keep President Obama and his team out of legal trouble, then it was former president Bill Clinton who is to blame.

Read more »