JobGate Grows: Add Romanoff Scandal to Sestak Scandal… Senate Candidate Says Three White House Jobs Were “Dangled” if He’d Drop from Senate Race
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on June 3, 2010
Andrew Romanoff, Democrat Senate candidate, revealed that the White House offered him three paying jobs if he dropped out of Colorado race
Professional exterminators will tell you — if you see one cockroach in your house, there are scores, perhaps hundreds or thousands, more lurking in your walls.
More cockroach-y scandals with the Obama White House are being torn from the walls… looks like Rep. Joe Sestak wasn’t the only one offered, er, dangled a job by Team Obama to pull out of the Democrat political race.
Somethin’ smells mighty fishy here…
From Politico: Andrew Romanoff: W.H. offered three jobs:
Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff confirmed Wednesday that Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff, suggested three administration jobs that would be available to him last September if he dropped his plans to run against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, who had the support of the White House.
Romanoff said he informed the White House that he would stay in the race. The revelation comes days after the White House confirmed that Rep. Joe Sestak was approached about an unpaid position in the administration if he dropped his campaign against Sen. Arlen Specter. But in this case, Romanoff was offered paid positions in the administration, a clear difference from the Sestak case.
Huffington Post has the White House’s response: Andrew Romanoff White House Job Offer: Robert Gibbs Responds, Read E-Mails Detailing Possible Jobs:
AP/Huffington Post – The White House faced fresh questions over back-room dealmaking after acknowledging that one of President Barack Obama’s top advisers encouraged Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff to apply for an international development job instead of challenging the candidate whom the president favored in a Senate race.
The aide “wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement Thursday. But once the aide learned the former Colorado House Speaker was determined to run against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet, Gibbs said, “There was no offer of a job.”
Here’s the statement in full released by Gibbs on Thursday:
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.
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. Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat, and Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.
But Romanoff said that he was committed to the Senate race and no longer interested in working for the Administration, and that ended the discussion. As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job.
From Patterico’s Pontifications, The White House Suggestion Department:
Both Romanoff and the White House insist no job offers were made. Apparently they were just dangled. Is this illegal? I don’t know but it’s questionable politics for a candidate who promised he was someone different. Some might even say it’s Obama’s version of The Chicago Way.
From Pundit & Pundette, Romanoff offered jobs by White House:
I’m sure most inside-the-beltway hacks see nothing wrong with this. And Messina knows how to do it without (technically) dirtying his hands. But my guess is that most Americans are getting the urge to clean some house, and the more idealistic among us are toying with this question: What did Obama know and when did he know it?
From Gateway Pundit, White House Acknowledges They Enticed Dem Romanoff With DC Position:
Another distraction…
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged today that the Obama Administration enticed Democratic Andrew Romanoff with a DC position if he decided not to run in the Colorado Senate primary against Michael Bennett.
From Jeff Dunetz at Big Government:
It is not clear whether offering a big or small job in exchange for Sestak to drop out of the race, was a misdemeanor, felony, or totally legal “politics as usual” deed . What is clear, is the explanation offered by the White House and Sestak today does not pass the “smell test” especially when one remembers that the same charges were directed toward the Obama administration in another Senate race.
On Sept. 27, 2009, Mike Riley of the Denver Post reported that Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff, offered Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff a position in the administration if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. The paper said the job offer which specified particular jobs, included a possible job at USAID, the foreign aid agency (unlike the tale told about the Sestak offer, Romanoff was offered a paid position).
The report claimed Messina contacted Romanoff right after news leaked in August 2009 that Romanoff would make a primary run against the incumbent, Bennet. Romanoff said no and announced his candidacy. Obama immediately endorsed Bennet who was appointed to his senate seat eight months earlier when Ken Salazar became Obama’s secretary of the Interior.
Related reading:
GayPatriot: Has Bill Clinton Broken Federal Law?
Gateway Pundit:
More Tales From the Congressional Gym: Rahm Gave Issa the Finger and Hmm… Colorado Dem Says Email Bribe Was Sent From White House Account (Video) and Bill Clinton Ignores Journalist’s Questions on Sestak Scandal (Video) and Liz Cheney on Bill Clinton: “There’s Not Exactly an Impeccable Record of Integrity There on the Part of the Former President” (Video) and Oh Brother. White House Says Bill Clinton Offered Sestak Non-Paying Job During Informal Discussions and Karl Rove: Joe Sestak Is Lying Or Protecting a Felon in the White House and Republicans Request Special Prosecutor to Investigate Sestak Scandal! (Video) and Law Expert Jay Sekulow: Sestak Bribery Scandal Is the “Tempest in a Teapot” That’s About to Blow (Video) and Figures… Lib Sestak Opens Arms to White House After Accusing Team O of Illegal Job Offer and Dick Morris: Sestak Bribery Scandal Is Impeachable Offense (Video)
Nice Deb: Is The Obama Presidency Doomed? and Video: Reporters Still Asking Gibbs Questions About Sestak (Updated) and How The GOP Can Get Around The Sestak Stonewall and Sestak’s Statement Today Does Not Square With His Original Story and The Latest On The Sestak “Jobgate” Scandal: Who’s Going Under The Bus? and An Impeachable Offense (with Updates) and The Latest On The Sestak Bribe And Cover-Up and Joe Sestak, the Inartful Dodger
Paul Chesser, American Spectator: It Wasn’t a Job; It Was an Uncompensated High-Level Advisory Capacity
Michelle Malkin: Why did the White House contact Joe Sestak’s brother? Update: Bob the Fixer earns his stripes; Issa responds; Sestak statement added and NYT: White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race; Updated
Frugal Café Blog Zone: “Slick Willy” Clinton Evades Press Questions on Sestak Job Offer, Rep. Issa Interview on “Jobgate” Scandal (video) and Shaky Story Finally Released from White House: It Was Bill Clinton Who Offered Sestak Job to Drop Out of Senate Race
National Review Online: They Offered Him What?
Mcnorman’s Weblog: Who’s lying? Sestak or Gibbs?
Patterico’s Pontifications: Bill Clinton to the Rescue
Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog: Obama Puts Bill Clinton @ Center of Sestak Job Offer Controversy
Christian Science Monitor: Sestak, Clinton, and Obama: Was it a bribe?
CNN: Durbin: Sestak must come clean about job offer
Another Black Conservative: Obama’s Sestak problem is not going away
Washington Post, The Plum Line: EXCLUSIVE: White House asked Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about Senate run
About the author
Well said, how many more are there that we won’t hear about?
Read that 95% of job growth right now in the US is in GOVERNMENT jobs.
Nice going, Barry.
You may recall when Clinton was President that a number of his associates were imprisoned because they lied to federal investigators. Patriots need to cause federal investigators to question Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. concerning his statements that he was offered a “government job” if he dropped out of his campaign. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa should be forced into this legal arena.
If the Obama administration broke the law offering Rep. Joe Sestak a job, could the Obama administration have made job offers to certain representatives to vote for Obamacare that could be addressed now to invalidate the passed health bill?
Below I enclosed information on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision that concerns penalties for (lying to federal investigators) pursuant to 18 USC 1001; including a possible 5-year prison sentence and fine for each false or misleading statement when questioned by the Feds.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BROGAN v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998
Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.
Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “exculpatory no.” Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “exculpatory no” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, ___–including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117. His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress. Pp. 2—8.
96 F.3d 35, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.
—-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html
· Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)
UNITED STATES (96-1579) 96 F.3d 35, affirmed. Syllabus: Opinion [ Scalia ] Concurrence [ Souter ] Concurrence [ Ginsburg ] Dissent [ Stevens ] HTML version
· http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html
*applause*
Well said, Ross – a much better job than I could have done. Your deep understanding and conveyance of history and law are precise and accurate. The links provided are a bonus – good work, I appreciate a lucid argument backed by facts. All readers should check the links out.