After This Answer From ActBlue's CEO, Republicans Should've Expected This Wouldn't Go Well
Here's What Karmelo Anthony's Mother Said Outside the Courthouse Following Her Son's Guilt...
California Just Showed Why Gun Control Is Racist
The AP Amazingly Declares in Court It Does Not Need to Follow Its...
Ignore All of the World Cup Meltdowns; This German Road Trip Account Marveling...
Spencer Pratt Isn’t Laughing at Jimmy Kimmel’s 'Jokes'
Here's What Victor Davis Hanson Has to Say About Graham Platner's Victory in...
Democrats' Struggle With Men Reflects a Deeper Cultural Disconnect
Massachusetts Doctor Sentenced to Nearly 5 Years for Healthcare Fraud, Tax Evasion, Money...
CENTCOM Confirms U.S. Resumes Strikes on Iran After Helicopter Shot Down
Democrat Rep. Summer Lee Says Equity Policies Are Only a Threat to White...
Romanian Man Sentenced to 5 Years, Ordered to Pay $11M for Walmart Card-Skimming...
Republicans Add to Narrow House Majority With New Member
Here's How Much Oil Went Through the Strait of Hormuz Under a 'Secret...
Philadelphia Teachers Just Admitted the Real Reason Behind the Failure of the Public...
Tipsheet

So Is Sestak a Liar?

So Is Sestak a Liar?
If the White House accounts (as noted by Jillian below) are true, then it seems that Joe Sestak is a liar.

Asking someone to remain in the House of Representatives -- and offering them nothing but an board membership -- does not constitute the offer of a
Advertisement
job, at least not within the meaning associated with the term by regular people.

So which is it?  Is The White House lying, or was Joe Sestak?

And if Sestak lied, what does it tell us about his character that he was willing -- for nothing more than his own political gain -- to accuse unnamed perpetrators of an offense that could be construed as impeachable, if the President knew about it?

Either the "job" offered Sestak was really nothing of meaning or value -- and the candidate lied in an opportunistic attempt to mislead Pennsylvania voters -- or the job did have meaning and value . . . and The White House was trying, through Bill Clinton, to use it to bribe Sestak to get out of the race.  (Update: Jack Cashill quotes Sestak's original allegations, and points out that it sure doesn't sound like he was talking about the offer of an unpaid position -- or just one contact).

My sense is that Sestak and the Obama administration are trying to slice the baloney pretty thinly here.  And although they may be able to wriggle out of legal liability, the entire episode pretty well lays bare the empty cynicism of the President's campaign-era promises of change . . . unless he means "change for the worse."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos