Sestak and the Obama's Watergate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
unfortunately, I’m going with my inner pessimist and think that this will not turn out to be anything that can be pinned on the big 0"s administration. They are clever and smart and they would have used someone unconnected to the WH directly to make the soft-sell approach. They know that quid pro quo is illegal and would have used an intermediary to convey the message in a plausible deniability gambit.

These people are no slouches at gaming the system - these are the best political tricksters to come out of the Chicago political machine - they know how to cheat and get away with it![/quote]

Then Pennsylvania peeps need to vote for Toomey, that is how we punish O’nelly, we will call him out on the transparency he campaigned on.

22

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
unfortunately, I’m going with my inner pessimist and think that this will not turn out to be anything that can be pinned on the big 0"s administration. They are clever and smart and they would have used someone unconnected to the WH directly to make the soft-sell approach. They know that quid pro quo is illegal and would have used an intermediary to convey the message in a plausible deniability gambit.

These people are no slouches at gaming the system - these are the best political tricksters to come out of the Chicago political machine - they know how to cheat and get away with it![/quote]

With Obama’s ability to throw people under the bus he has shown his true character. I am thinking that who ever the third party is probably is not willing to be the fall guy, so lets see how this unfolds. Hopefull the third party got their money up front.

23

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Sestak_Memorandum.pdf

24

Looks like Sestak is tweaking his story to agree with the press release. He had originally claimed someone in the whitehouse offered him a job. Now, it’s Clinton who offered him an unpaid advisory board position.

This reeks of cover up.

25

^ yep - all about that plausible deniability

26

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ yep - all about that plausible deniability[/quote]

The WH is saying it intended to keep him in the house (not offer him the navy job), but apparently the advisory board isn’t open to members of congress.

It just doesn’t pass the smell test.

27

Here’s the problem. It will go nowhere under Reid and Pelosi regardless of public opinion as we saw with healthcare. The approaching closeness of the election may sway that some, but I doubt it. If the GOP were to reacquire the house and senate this fall and take this up it would be rabidly portrayed as a partisan witch hunt.

We’ll see I guess.

28

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here’s the problem. It will go nowhere under Reid and Pelosi regardless of public opinion as we saw with healthcare. The approaching closeness of the election may sway that some, but I doubt it. If the GOP were to reacquire the house and senate this fall and take this up it would be rabidly portrayed as a partisan witch hunt.

We’ll see I guess.[/quote]

You forgot about the worthless AG Holder, he is an inept bum just like the rest of them.

29

If the voters of this country are dumb enough to believe Obama’s nonsensical spin, then they deserve what they get. And if black voters (who are overwhelmingly racist, voting 95% for Obama) ignore the truth and still vote for this criminal, then they deserve what they’re going to get too.

30

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Looks like Sestak is tweaking his story to agree with the press release. He had originally claimed someone in the whitehouse offered him a job. Now, it’s Clinton who offered him an unpaid advisory board position.

This reeks of cover up.[/quote]

Yup. He spoke with a guy who spoke with a guy.

They’re mushing it up so that there is nothing solid to pin on anybody.

I still can’t figure out why there would be any interest in this guy or his position within the party, other than keeping Specter in office and maintaining the various positions he holds.

Even if that were the basis of this maneuver, it doesn’t seem like it would be worth the risk. They must not have known who they were making an offer to.

31

[quote]Plot Device wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If we find out Sestak was lying it’d be great for PA, Toomey would have it locked up. If we find out Obama was involved with offering him a job (which he probably was) I’m willing to bet America forgets all about it by 2012.[/quote]

Toomey is anti-science. Which makes him NOT good for PA.

jnd[/quote]

Not terribly familiar with Toomey. How is he anti-science? [/quote]

Google NIH and Toomey. Seems that he did not think that we should be funding certain types of research (anything to do with sex, HIV, etc.). He is a typical douchebag that believes that he should guide science- even though he does not have a scientific background.

He cried “they are using money to study SEX and I don’t like that.”

jnd

32

Clinton and Obama at lunch together yesterday.

I’m sure they weren’t trying to get their stories straight. No, that would never happen.

33

When you see finger pointing, mixed stories, botched lies, it’s a dead giveaway that someone fucked up somewhere.

34

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Plot Device wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If we find out Sestak was lying it’d be great for PA, Toomey would have it locked up. If we find out Obama was involved with offering him a job (which he probably was) I’m willing to bet America forgets all about it by 2012.[/quote]

Toomey is anti-science. Which makes him NOT good for PA.

jnd[/quote]

Not terribly familiar with Toomey. How is he anti-science? [/quote]

Google NIH and Toomey. Seems that he did not think that we should be funding certain types of research (anything to do with sex, HIV, etc.). He is a typical douchebag that believes that he should guide science- even though he does not have a scientific background.

He cried “they are using money to study SEX and I don’t like that.”

jnd
[/quote]

I think most research should be funded privately, so I’ve got no problems with that.

Toomey>>>>>Sestak

35

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Plot Device wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If we find out Sestak was lying it’d be great for PA, Toomey would have it locked up. If we find out Obama was involved with offering him a job (which he probably was) I’m willing to bet America forgets all about it by 2012.[/quote]

Toomey is anti-science. Which makes him NOT good for PA.

jnd[/quote]

Not terribly familiar with Toomey. How is he anti-science? [/quote]

Google NIH and Toomey. Seems that he did not think that we should be funding certain types of research (anything to do with sex, HIV, etc.). He is a typical douchebag that believes that he should guide science- even though he does not have a scientific background.

He cried “they are using money to study SEX and I don’t like that.”

jnd
[/quote]

I think most research should be funded privately, so I’ve got no problems with that.

Toomey>>>>>Sestak[/quote]

That is not the issue. This points out two things about Toomer. First he is a prudish, small minded person. Second, he believes that he is qualified to judge what is scientifically viable. Both things make him repugnant.

jnd

36

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Plot Device wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If we find out Sestak was lying it’d be great for PA, Toomey would have it locked up. If we find out Obama was involved with offering him a job (which he probably was) I’m willing to bet America forgets all about it by 2012.[/quote]

Toomey is anti-science. Which makes him NOT good for PA.

jnd[/quote]

Not terribly familiar with Toomey. How is he anti-science? [/quote]

Google NIH and Toomey. Seems that he did not think that we should be funding certain types of research (anything to do with sex, HIV, etc.). He is a typical douchebag that believes that he should guide science- even though he does not have a scientific background.

He cried “they are using money to study SEX and I don’t like that.”

jnd
[/quote]

I think most research should be funded privately, so I’ve got no problems with that.

Toomey>>>>>Sestak[/quote]

That is not the issue. This points out two things about Toomer. First he is a prudish, small minded person. Second, he believes that he is qualified to judge what is scientifically viable. Both things make him repugnant.

jnd
[/quote]

Googled that stuff.

here is an example of what I found:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200308/ai_n9267776/

I can respect the fact that he wants to eliminate waste in the NIH. Some of those studies were ridiculous (transgendered indians, really?). I tend to agree with his opposition though, that results can be found in odd places, i.e. the polish pig study. I’d hardly say that this qualifies him as anti-science, however. He doesn’t seem better or worse than any other politician. There are plenty of them, left and right, that try to direct science. Look at the whole global warming debate. Certain politicians won’t even acknowledge the fact that there may be valid alternate theories or even variants that show what is happening is not as catastrophic as many think, yet they still want to reshape the world’s economy to fit within their idea of what is happening.

I’m not trying to start a global warming debate. Just saying that anti-science comment is not merited.

37

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]Plot Device wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If we find out Sestak was lying it’d be great for PA, Toomey would have it locked up. If we find out Obama was involved with offering him a job (which he probably was) I’m willing to bet America forgets all about it by 2012.[/quote]

Toomey is anti-science. Which makes him NOT good for PA.

jnd[/quote]

Not terribly familiar with Toomey. How is he anti-science? [/quote]

Google NIH and Toomey. Seems that he did not think that we should be funding certain types of research (anything to do with sex, HIV, etc.). He is a typical douchebag that believes that he should guide science- even though he does not have a scientific background.

He cried “they are using money to study SEX and I don’t like that.”

jnd
[/quote]

I think most research should be funded privately, so I’ve got no problems with that.

Toomey>>>>>Sestak[/quote]

That is not the issue. This points out two things about Toomer. First he is a prudish, small minded person. Second, he believes that he is qualified to judge what is scientifically viable. Both things make him repugnant.

jnd
[/quote]

Actually, Spending government money on research is when politicians are determining what is viable. Not spending my money is allowing the market to determine viability itself.

38

So how long till our liberal friends start screaming for Obama to be impeached over this blatant illegal act?

39

Obama is TRYING to create jobs…

"After a 10-week investigation, the Obama White House concluded that Bill Clinton, acting on his own, offered Sestak a nonpaying, advisory job with the administration.

It sounds like something Bill would tell Hillary after sneaking back into the house in the wee hours of the morning. “Honest, honey, I wasn’t out with a tawdry cocktail waitress. I was offering some guy I barely know a job at the Obama White House.”

So yeah, I know it sounds fishy, but if Bill Clinton says this is how it happened, that’s good enough for me. Why, Clinton hasn’t lied under oath in front of a federal grand jury for more than a decade.

Incidentally, why do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words “nothing improper happened”? As I recall, the definition of “proper” gets pretty elastic when you’re talking about Bill Clinton.

It’s too bad Sestak turned down the offer, because if he had said yes, Obama could claim to have created at least one job, albeit unpaid."

– Ann Coulter

40

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama is TRYING to create jobs…

"After a 10-week investigation, the Obama White House concluded that Bill Clinton, acting on his own, offered Sestak a nonpaying, advisory job with the administration.

It sounds like something Bill would tell Hillary after sneaking back into the house in the wee hours of the morning. “Honest, honey, I wasn’t out with a tawdry cocktail waitress. I was offering some guy I barely know a job at the Obama White House.”

So yeah, I know it sounds fishy, but if Bill Clinton says this is how it happened, that’s good enough for me. Why, Clinton hasn’t lied under oath in front of a federal grand jury for more than a decade.

Incidentally, why do so many Bill Clinton stories end with the words “nothing improper happened”? As I recall, the definition of “proper” gets pretty elastic when you’re talking about Bill Clinton.

It’s too bad Sestak turned down the offer, because if he had said yes, Obama could claim to have created at least one job, albeit unpaid."

– Ann Coulter
[/quote]

^ LMAO - Awesome! Saved or created jobs!

And now there is the congressman in CO with almost the exact same story, except it was a WH offical making the job offers . . . somethings rotten in Denmark . . and DC