Figures. Sestak Was Not Eligible For Job Clinton Offered
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, May 29, 2010, 2:14 PM
Not only was it a non-paying job that Bill Clinton supposedly offered Sestak, but it was a job that he was not eligible for.
The Washington Examiner reported:
In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. And since the White House intended for Sestak to remain in his House seat, he would not have been eligible for the board after this November’s elections, provided he was re-elected to the House.
Will the state-run media ignore this, too?
More… Sestak cover story starts to unravel.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Obama Campaign National Co-Chair Admits Giving Students Credit For Volunteering to Elect Democrats
Published February 22, 2012 at 4:19 pm - 32 Comments
Just_Saying commented:
After so much practice, you’d think the lies would be better…
.
nano commented:
Can’t wait to see version 2.0 the new fresh and improved version.
nano commented:
Oh and BTW SCOTUS just said the Blago trial is good to go next week.
Stock up on popcorn or your favorite snack.
BurmaShave commented:
I, for one, suspect the “explanation” provided by the White House yesterday about the job offered to Sestak is a complete fabrication, and does comport with what really happened in any significant detail. It fails the smell test in various ways.
eaglewingz08 commented:
Only a fool (read democrap) would believe that the WH offered a non paying ineligible position to Joe to stay out of the race and enlisted Bill Clinton to make that insult to Mr. Sestak. Only an email investigation will get to the bottom of this murky immoral and possibly criminal conduct.
Opus #6 commented:
This little “explanation” is perking up more ears than even before. This deal is rotten to the core.
Steve commented:
Why is anyone surprised by this? Obama isn’t eligible for his job either, and none of his gang…er, administration is qualified for their jobs.
Valerie commented:
Best headline on the topic, H/t Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/29/those-folks-at-the-daily-caller-sure-have-a-good-sense-of-humor/
Truly stupid cover story. We already knew these people don’t know how to read legislation. Now we know they can spend a whole month without checking up on the eligibility requirements for a cover story.
ogee commented:
This stinks so bad you can smell it all the way to hell. Liars. Spin doctors. This is a big fat lie.
Procecute!
USMC Thomas commented:
Having the WH investigate this truthfully is like having the rat find who stole the cheese.
Gary Gross commented:
The statement created more questions than it answered.
Galt commented:
Sorry if anyone already offered this up. This whole thing is so Clinton-esque — not way Obama’s people cooked it up.
Bill and Hill showed up in the doorway of a distraught officeholder and offered cover. The only thing that matters, they said, is our friendship.
Kind-a like that scene in the Godfather, where the corrupt senator needed cover from an “awkward situation” he found himself in. The consigliere showed up at the door, a cover story at the ready. Fictional story, certainly, but clearly illustrates who holds the whip hand in such “friendships.”
(Tom Hagan to Sen Pat Geary: “All that will be left is our friendship.” Yep.)
archer52 commented:
This is fun and all, and it smells of Chicago Politics, but it isn’t a crime.
If the prosecutor refuses to look at it, the judges refuse to look at it and law enforcement refuses to look at it- it doesn’t exist as a crime.
An affront, but not a crime.
Galt commented:
Yeah, violating a statute not a crime — as long as the statute is not enforced.
I’ll not pay my taxes and use that as a defense. I’m sure it’ll work for me.
Or are the laws just for the little people?