# Should Sestak Squeal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604 "2010-05-24T18:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/161 "2010-05-29T14:50:20Z")
I didn’t think there was much to this, but now, after hearing the explanation being offered, I call BULLSHIT. I agree with **bri1600bv** , it doesn’t sound plausible that at the heart of this whole thing was an offer to serve on some committee. That’s not a _job_, which Sestak says he was offered. And the fact that Clinton and the White House had to first meet and and get their stories straight before any mention of this innocent little offer to be on the board. I have no doubt Emanuel would lie—that’s one sleazy SOB. And Sestak, now having caused this little flap by opening his mouth, will say anything to show that he’s one of the boys. That leaves Clinton, which makes this quite comical. Just think, if someone looks into this any further it might all come down to what the definition of “job” is. More sleazy politicians. God, I’m tired of their bullshit. And I mean both sides. This is just the Dems turn to give us a little peek under the rock. Oh well, once again nothing a little handwaving and lying can’t fix. Let’s keep moving folks…nothing to see here… ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/162 "2010-05-29T15:30:53Z")
The fact that Bob Bauer has written that, yes, Sestak was offered a position but, since it was a non-paying job nothing illegal happened has to make you wonder. This seems to imply that a paid position would, indeed, be illegal. But, I think Bauer misread the statute…even a non-paying position could constitute a benefit. To those of you who think there is nothing to see here, including **Bricker** , don’t you find it strange that the white house delayed commenting on this for so long, that Obama met with Clinton (who apparently offered Sestak the position) yesterday, and that his counsel wrote such a memo. The letter is an admission that the administration sought to prevent Sestak from running in order to prevent a divisive primary fight. It seems the only thing left to figure out is whether the position offered was a paid position or if pay even matters in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/163 "2010-05-29T16:35:27Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Did you even read the op thread opener: Sestak acknowledged in an interview in February that he was offered a position by an unnamed White House official - a potential violation of federal law > > Yes, it is. No it isn’t. No political favor was sought, and nothing of value was offered. There was neither quid nor quo. It has never been illegal to offer somebody a job not to run for office, and Obama didn’t even do that much. It’s interesting that you are accusing Ronald Reagan of a crime, though. I’ll have to defend him. Preseident Reagan did not commit a crime every time he offered somebody a job not to run for office. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/164 "2010-05-29T16:37:39Z")
> [@bri1600bv](#): > > Why did Axelrod say it would be a “serious violation of the law” if he had in fact, been offered a job if he dropped out? Cite that Axerod said this? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/165 "2010-05-29T16:42:28Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word “forthcoming” is. > > Well the WH has put out an explanation after months of “I have nothing furthers” … **Dio** believes them, end of story. > > We were promised higher standards (not that anyone with any brains would have believed it)… I’m just wondering if we have a new standard or the same old double standard. Seems like we were a little skeptical of WH spin not too long ago. > > One little conversation about a little old non-paying position with Slick Willy or an adminstrat official offering a high ranking job? > > Did Sestak just try to puff himself up a bit? After “months?” No. After a few days of Fox News trying to blow air into it and create a phony scandal. It didn’t have to be commented on before because it wasn’t, and never has been, the kind of thing worth commenting on. I don’t know what you mean by “higher standards.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, unethical or borderline about the practice. Complaining about it is like complaining about the President shaving in the morning just like every other President. What do "standards’ have to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/166 "2010-05-29T16:47:18Z")
Can any of you righties tell me whether Ronald Reagan committed a crime when he offered Senator Hayakawa an administration job not to run for reelection in 1982? Answer the question, yes or no. I’ll give you a hint: the answer is no. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/167 "2010-05-29T21:24:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Can any of you righties tell me whether Ronald Reagan committed a crime when he offered Senator Hayakawa an administration job not to run for reelection in 1982? > > Answer the question, yes or no. > > I’ll give you a hint: the answer is no. Cite that Reagan approached Hayakawa with an offer. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/168 "2010-05-29T22:07:43Z")
[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656) \*\*Hayakawa’s ‘Not Interested’ in Any Reagan Job Offer \*\* Google is your friend. Well, not your friend, so much… ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/169 "2010-05-29T22:55:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > After “months?” No. After a few days of Fox News trying to blow air into it and create a phony scandal. It didn’t have to be commented on before because it wasn’t, and never has been, the kind of thing worth commenting on. > > I don’t know what you mean by “higher standards.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, unethical or borderline about the practice. Complaining about it is like complaining about the President shaving in the morning just like every other President. What do "standards’ have to do with it? Yes “months”…Gibbs was asked about it in February and he just blew it off hoping that Sestak would lose. If it was such a simple little thing he surely could have provided an answer a long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/170 "2010-05-29T23:36:52Z")
Sestak was ineligible for the advisory board position Clinton supposedly offered him. [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/) So, either the administration is lying about the job offer or they are not too bright. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/171 "2010-05-29T23:52:00Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Sestak was ineligible for the advisory board position Clinton supposedly offered him. > > [White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race - The New York Times](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/) > > So, either the administration is lying about the job offer or they are not too bright. When you suggest that the administration is lying or not too bright, I think you’re looking at the wrong option. > [@your link](#): > > The White House did not disclose what those options were, but people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment to the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of prominent Americans outside government who provide independent oversight of the nation’s spy apparatus and advise the president. But White House officials discovered that it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress. Your suggestion that Clinton offered him this position is contradicted by a careful reading of your link. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/172 "2010-05-29T23:58:32Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Yes “months”…Gibbs was asked about it in February and he just blew it off hoping that Sestak would lose. > > If it was such a simple little thing he surely could have provided an answer a long time ago. “This is important. We know its important because they said it wasn’t, therefore it is. And the fact that they treated it like it wasn’t important shows that its really very important, because they are trying to hide it. Which they wouldn’t do if it wasn’t so important. The only other possibility would be that this is a trivial and insignificant matter, which we know isn’t true, because we already proved that it is very, very important.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/173 "2010-05-30T00:00:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [Star-News - Google News Archive Search](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656) > > \*\*Hayakawa’s ‘Not Interested’ in Any Reagan Job Offer \*\* > > Google is your friend. Well, not your friend, so much… You should read what you cite. Nowhere in the article (which I read before asking for a cite) does it say President Reagan offered him a job. Not only that, Hayakawa said in a statement, ”I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me.” That corresponds to a statement made by the future chief of staff that no offer was made. I agree with you that Google is my friend, and that Reagan broke no law. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/174 "2010-05-30T00:17:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > When you suggest that the administration is lying or not too bright, I think you’re looking at the wrong option. Yes…perhaps Sestak is lying. But, given the administration’s actions since this became public I don’t think so. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Your suggestion that Clinton offered him this position is contradicted by a careful reading of your link. Bob Bauer claimed Clinton reached out to him: [http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak%20Memorandum.pdf](http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Sestak%20Memorandum.pdf) Sestak claims he heard “intel” in the offer ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/Y6RTXo9OA5g/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y6RTXo9OA5g?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque Just connecting the dots. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/175 "2010-05-30T00:22:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “This is important. We know its important because they said it wasn’t, therefore it is. And the fact that they treated it like it wasn’t important shows that its really very important, because they are trying to hide it. Which they wouldn’t do if it wasn’t so important. The only other possibility would be that this is a trivial and insignificant matter, which we know isn’t true, because we already proved that it is very, very important.” Except that the President couldn’t bring himself to make a simple statement when asked and admitted they were in the process of addressing the matter. So apparently it was important enough that his staff had to work on a letter spelling it out. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/176 "2010-05-30T00:23:58Z")
Didn’t say Reagan broke any laws. Furthest thing from my mind, since I believe that none of this is remotely illegal, regardless. But unless this fellow Rollins acted entirely on his own initiative, boldly charting a course without checking with anybody, then it is fair to characterize this as a Readan Admin. offer/suggestion/trial ballooon. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/177 "2010-05-30T00:27:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …So apparently it was important enough that his staff had to work on a letter spelling it out. What? OMFG! His staff worked on a letter? Jesus Marimba, that changes everything! Blockbuster! Sestakgate! ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/178 "2010-05-30T00:37:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What? OMFG! His staff worked on a letter? Jesus Marimba, that changes everything! Blockbuster! Sestakgate! OMG it was so difficult to say it never happened. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/179 "2010-05-30T00:39:04Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Didn’t say Reagan broke any laws. And I agreed with you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2010, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/180 "2010-05-30T03:50:21Z")
Howard Rollins, Reagan’s political advisor, bragged on the record about offering Hayakawa a job. A jpg of the old AP article is linked in this thread. I know you guys are disappointed that your shiny new scandal turned into shit but trying to deny documented history is just silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=10)