Asking someone to remain in the House of Representatives -- and offering them nothing but an board membership -- does not constitute the offer of a
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."