Dick Morris suspects that the White House offered Romanoff a job to assure Bennet’s healthcare vote
I received an interesting email the other day. This email contained an article written by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann that I had missed. In this article, the authors speculate as to why someone in the White House would offer Andrew Romanoff a job in return for dropping out of the race. This was a question that I hadn’t pondered very much; I just assumed that it was because Michael Bennet was a political insider, so naturally he would have the support of the administration.
But it turns out that isn’t true, why then did the White House feel strongly enough about Bennet to try to clear the field for his re-election bid? As the article states, we all know the reason why Joe Sestak was offered a job in the administration to drop out of the Pennsylvania primary; Arlen Specter was “persuaded” to leave the Republican party in order to make his re-election bid easier. Once it was learned that Arlen Specter was going to face a primary opponent, the White House decided to eliminate that opponent as a reward for his changing parties. That plan didn’t work, and thankfully the Pennsylvania voters did the right thing. But what led the White House to try to affect the outcome of the Colorado primary is less clear.
The answer could lie in the healthcare reform bill. Not in the bill itself, of course, but in the events leading up to the vote on healthcare reform. According to Dick Morris, Michael Bennet was a question mark when it came to the healthcare reform bill, nobody knew for sure whether he was going to support it or not. But suddenly, shortly after the job offer to Andrew Romanoff was made, Michael Bennet proclaimed that he would support the healthcare reform bill even if it meant losing his senate seat. As Dick Morris wrote– not in these exact terms– isn’t it funny how suddenly Michal Bennet found the courage to make this stand shortly after the White House made an offer to Romanoff to drop out of the race?
We all know about the various deals that were given out in order to secure the votes on healthcare reform, but now it appears as if the bribery even reached the level of tampering in federal elections. Was Michael Bennet assured that he would face no primary opponent if he voted for the healthcare reform bill? Nobody knows this for sure, but nobody can say with certainty that this did not happen.
This is another reason why there needs to be a special investigator appointed to look into this case. The White House has already changed its story about Joe Sestak, and the White House has already changed its story about Andrew Romanoff. It seems as if there is more to these stories than meets the eye, and it is about time that the American people found out exactly what it is.
America's Watchtower 
[This is another reason why there needs to be a special investigator appointed to look into this case.]
That won’t happen because they didn’t break any laws. It’s just political horse-trading that has been going on since Washington. You right-wing-nut-jobs are just desperate for something to complain about.
LikeLike
No it won’t happen, I know that, but not because any laws weren’t broken. They were. I agree that this has been going on in Washington forever, but that doesn’t make it right and it is only amplified by the fact that Barack Obama promised to end the politics as usual if he became president. He has turned out to be a hypocrite and a liar. If that is acceptable to you, it says even more about you than it does about Obama.
LikeLike
This continues to get interesting. I just hope it doesn’t become a distraction from the other issues, like repealing ObamaCare.
The administration, in the interest of “transparency,” should appoint a prosecutor to expose it all.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
LikeLike
I don’t think that this will distract from the other issues, but add to them.
LikeLike
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 have 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
LikeLike
Wow! Does you head spin just from all the twisted, lying, spinning and dodging going on! Is there anything these people aren’t doing? Geesh..
LikeLike