Friday, May 28, 2010

Charge Of "Impeachable Offense" Leads To Bill Clinton - Go Figure

Since the report this morning that former Bill Clinton was asked by Rahm Emmanuel to "reason with" Joe Sestak about dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter, the news world has been abuzz with commentary and speculation about this and that.  Even bantering about to notion of an "impeachable offense" being committed.

Today’s official BONA (Barack Obama News Agency) release explains that Clinton was asked to offer Sestak "an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter...".  

Maybe it would have been better if Clinton went to save Blanche Lincoln's azz instead.

(Note:  Unconfirmed reports say Emmanuel originally was to do this himself, but Sestek had already left to Capital locker room shower when Rahm arrived.  Yes, it's a snark…)

Things like this happen all the time in Washington – truth is, it’s happening most everywhere.  In today’s sleazy political environment, it’s a regular occurrence to have some political operative offering a candidate “an offer s/he can’t refuse”.  So on the surface, isn’t it peculiar that something so “normal” is garners so much attention?

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post says some insiders see nothing under the smoke:  

"How do you make something out of nothing?" asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."  

Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".

Is it possible that bringing Clinton into the equation has something to do with all the attention?  It seems to me we've discussed Clinton and Impeachment in the same sentence a time or two before, haven’t we?  I have vague recollections, but can't place my finger on what the exact cause was.  Did it have something to do with mistaking White Owl cigars for marital aids?  Or maybe it was something to do with color (white on blue)?  Perhaps a more basic issue, such as grammar (“…Can you tell me what "is" is”)?  Someone leave a comment if you have that info close at hand....

Anyhow, in a related story, it seems even the members of the MSM are noting the fragrance of political bovine excrement buried within the new-and-even-more-convoluted explanation out today from BONA.  Hot Air tries to contend with the mind-numbing twists and turns (emphasis mine)...

Let me get this straight: The president’s chief of staff dispatched a former president to talk to an aspiring senator about dropping his primary bid in return for … a spot on some no-name unpaid advisory board? Does that sound remotely plausible?
(Surprisingly, lefty sedition expert Joe Klein says no, before quickly adding that it doesn’t matter anyway.)

Does that even square with what Sestak’s said in the past about having been offered “a job”?

Jonah Goldburg at NRO tries to sum the mess up in meaningful terms:
I can only conclude that Sestak is either lying or a blowhard. Because, if he’s telling the truth, that means he mistook a casual offer for a seat on some advisory board (Maritime Commission for the Rules of Card Games on Both Sides of the International Dateline or the Blue Ribbon Panel on the Perils of Accumulated Naval Navel Lint) as some kind of serious bribe to stay out of the Senate race. Right?

Of course it’s also possible that Sestak is also hitting the political crack-pipe. Or at minimum, was enjoying a refreshing “double hyperbole with a bovine excrement shot on the side”. 

Somewhere in this is the truth.  Many, (including yours truly) believe there’s a “Paul Harvey Moment” that’s yet to surface:

“…and now, the rest of the story…”

I do, by default, subscribe to “where there's smoke, there's fire". As such, I believe there IS something left to be uncovered.  And, let’s not forget that even as explained, Obama may have broken the law. And because the entire scenario is so typical of Obama’s known modus operandi – specifically the liberal use of strong-arm tactics - it's going to be hard to make it just go away with a simple explanation.  I don't see how anyone - even on the Left - can't envision Obama's fingerprints all over this.

And oh, BTW, doesn't this sound just like the story from Illinois where Obama asked Andy Reid to intercede to assure his hand-picked successor would assume his old Congressional seat?  Switch Andy Reid for Clinton, and both scenarios are eerily similar in script.

And didn’t we have another President who had some troubles with strong arm operatives, then tried to sweep the story under the rug in somewhat dismissive fashion?  That was until the story developed real legs (or was it a "deep throat?).  

Oh yeah, that was Richard Nixon. Anyone remember how that worked out for him?


  1. LINKED at RR today- enjoy your weekend, and may God Bless the USA


  2. Well lets see...Clinton had lunch with the president just a couple of days before BONA came out with their statement and Sestaks lawyers had some meetings with white house lawyers a couple of days before BONA's statement. ( fly on the wall)..."This is what we're gonna say and this is what you're gonna say. After my official news agency, BONA makes it's statement, this whole thing will blow over and we can get back to screwing the silly Americans".

    Mr. G