A theory that the White House is telling the truth—Obama did make Sestak a meaningless offer, because he didn’t care whether Sestak accepted it

Paul of Powerline, who is an attorney, says he’s not that stirred up by the Sestak affair. He reminds us that “Offering a politician one post in exchange for his forbearance from seeking another is as American as apple pie”—historically. But there is now a federal statute that makes such an offer a crime. He points out that the statute includes “appointments”—which could mean an unpaid position—among the things which may not be offered in exchange for political activity, and says that if the White House story is true, “it’s possible that someone in the White House, perhaps Rahm Emanuel, violated the statute. If so, a fine and resignation are in order.”

Paul continues, offering new and intelligent angles on what the truth of the affair may be:

But the bigger danger for the administration will arise if its version of the facts turns out to be false and, especially, if the White House is found to have engaged in some form of witness tampering as it put this story together.

I don’t assume that the White House’s story is false, much less that it tampered with witnesses. However, the story doesn’t exactly make me say, “of course.” Rather, it raises such question as: Could the White House have believed that Sestak would pass up the chance to run for the Senate in exchange for an unpaid position on top of his duties in the House? And: Was Sestak lying when he indicated that the job offered to him was a big deal?…

SOME POSSIBLE ANSWERS: Could the White House have believed that Sestak would pass up the chance to run for the Senate in exchange for an unpaid position in addition to his duties in the House? No. But Obama may not have cared whether Sestak took the bait. There is no reason to believe he prefers Arlen Specter to the more reliable, less obnoxious (I assume) Sestak. What mattered was going through the motions of keeping the president’s promise to do what he could to help Specter.

Was Sestak lying when he indicated that the job offered to him was a big deal? Well, I’d say he was certainly exaggerating. But it was in his interest to do so. The idea was to present himself as a hero, so intent on serving Pennsylvanians in the Senate that he turned down a plum position to defy the odds and run against Specter.

To sum up Paul’s theory: (1) The White House did make Sestak an offer of an unpaid advisory post, which may have been a violation of law (though I would add that it seems unlikely that a quid pro quo involving an unpaid advisory post would be prosecuted by anyone). They didn’t care if the offer wasn’t attractive to Sestak, because they were only going through the motions of trying to get Sestak to withdraw in order to keep their promise to Specter to help him in his re-election. They didn’t like Specter and wouldn’t mind if Sestak beat him. (2) Sestak for months talked up and exaggerated the offer, misleading the public in order to make himself look heroic. That’s why he said, “No comment,” when asked if the White House had promised to make him Secretary of the Navy. He wanted people to believe that he had been offered that high post and that he had refused it.

- end of initial entry -

Neil P. writes:

Would Bill Clinton agree to be dispatched to make someone an offer for an upaid post? I suspect that advisory board was promised for deniability purposes, with an implicit promise of a more serious position (such as secretary of navy) when it became available.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 29, 2010 12:25 PM | Send