White House Offered Romanoff 3 Jobs

The new White House jobs program just keeps getting worse. WH mouthpiece Robert Gibbs insists the Obama administration did nothing illegal, then goes on to admit Jim Messina offered Andrew Romanoff 3 jobs to get out of the race against Michael Bennet.

In a statement released early this morning, WH Press Sec. Robert Gibbs said the WH had done nothing wrong. "Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process. After the new administration took office, he followed up by phone with White House personnel," Gibbs said. "Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate. ... Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters."

As Ed Morrissey points out,

Er, isn’t that exactly the problem? If the White House has been offering people paid jobs in the administration in order to “avoid costly battles” in primaries, then that breaks the law. The allegations surrounding their dealings with Joe Sestak and Romanoff have been all along that the White House attempted to buy off primary challengers to Democratic incumbents in Senate races. Far from establishing that there has been no wrongdoing, the statement confirms the allegations.

As Ed then notes, the chances of prosecution here are minimal, but it does expose the Obama administration as a corrupt political machine, and that flies in the face of his "I'm a new kind of politician" meme. Friends are telling me that "everybody does it," and that a Bush administration official said so. I guess that argument is supposed to make it ok to break the law, but I've never understood how, precisely. I mean, we still have murders, so should we get rid of laws against it? It's a stupid argument brought up by desperate Obama-lovers, and it's going to tar all Democrats. This White House isn't just corrupt. It's incompetent.

Obama's Justice Department Quick to Launch Probe on Oil Spill, Slow to Launch Probe on Sestak Job Offer

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Obama administration is moving very fast to launch a Justice Department investigation of the gulf oil spill, but dragging its feet regarding Joe Sestak's claim that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Senate race against Arlen Specter?

Hmm. The oil spill's been going less than 40 days and it gets an investigation. Joe Sestake first claimed the White House offered him a job in February, yet there's no investigation of what would clearly be a violation of federal law.

Nah, no conflict there, right?

Obama on Sestak: It Depends on What the Definition of "Job" Is

The White House has released a paper trying to explain away the job offer offer of service on a "Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity," but this still smells.

Bauer asserts, without providing any examples, that there “have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations…discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office.” He then concludes that “[s]uch discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Why would the White House take months to offer this explanation if there was no illegality to it? Wasn't this supposed to be the most ethical, competent White House in history?

What we're left with is either (a) lying by Joe Sestak about what was offered, (b) lying by the White House about what was offered, (c) incompetence by Joe Sestake about what was offered, or (d) incompetence on the part of the White House about what was offered. It's clear that this paper is an attempt to parse the language of the applicable law so that the White House's actions were not illegal and subject to--dare I say it?--impeachment.

Bauer admits that Rahm Emanuel asked Bill Clinton to offer Sestak an appointment to a “Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board,” and that the appointment would be attractive, i.e., a benefit. The statute does not absolve you of liability if you are offering someone an uncompensated appointment. It also specifies that you are guilty of a violation if you make such an offer “directly or indirectly.” Moreover, since the executive branch may not spend money that is not appropriated by Congress, any such board would be authorized by or at least paid for by an “Act of Congress.”

This situation definitely needs a special prosecutor appointed, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Obama minions to do the right thing. It's interesting that the same people screaming for a special prosecutor regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys are yawning and trying to change the subject on this.

Is the Sestak Affair an Impeachable Offense?

Exclusive: All 7 Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee Ask AG Holder to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Look Into Alleged Sestak Job Offer
It certainly needs investigating. From Hot Air:

Darrell Issa, who started the drum-beating about this, is calling it Obama’s Watergate and potential grounds for impeachment, and went as far this week as to threaten Sestak with an ethics complaint if he doesn’t come clean. Here’s the key federal statute, although it’s not the only one in play potentially: Karl Rove cited three criminal provisions on Monday night that could conceivably have been violated.

Republicans can't force an investigation, of course, but it will be interesting to see if the press actually treats this like a "what if it were a Republican?" situation.

This must give Perry "there's no evidence! Oh, and Republicans do it, too!" indigestion. I'll pass him the Tums.