Critics Notice Something Weird About Vindman's Tweet. Musk Responds.
Elon Musk Says Apple 'Threatened to Withhold Twitter' From App Store
Ron Klain Taking It Up a Notch With Gaslighting the American People in...
It’s Time to Escalate
'Our City Is in Peril': Portland Store Forced to Close Over Rampant Crime
GOP Rep: We're Not Going to Have a Rail Strike
Elon Musk Tweeted a Meme About CNN...Then They Melted Down
Apple Again Comes to Aid of Chinese Communist Party Amid Protests
Woke Tales II: SF Fires its Popular, Competent Elections Administrator. Can You Guess...
Your Midterm Campaign Donations Might Not Have Gone Where You Thought
Teen Confesses on Instagram to Murdering Another Child, Police Say
Top House Democrat Compares Buying Firearms to Buying Slaves
Why a Man Who Killed Wife Over Thanksgiving Could Have a Robust Defense
Schlichter: Why Reward Mediocrity?
White House Can't Get Its Story Straight on Biden's Role in Railroad Union...

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
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


Trending on Townhall Video