Sestak’s Reluctance to Reveal Details Confusing

To The Editor:
The question of whether or not U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) was offered a cabinet position within the Obama administration if he dropped out of the race for Arlen Specter’s senate seat needs to be clarified. Sestak said that is exactly what was offered to him last summer, but will not offer further details as to who made the offer and exactly what the position was. We now know that Sestak declined the offer and went on to defeat Specter in the primary by eight points.
Sestak’s reluctance to reveal further details is both confusing and questionable. It’s confusing for the rea-son that Obama says that no offer was made. It’s ques-tionable because, if an offer was made, someone within the administration is guilty of a felony. Federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any posi-tion or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election.
Sestak first revealed his claim in a TV interview in February and he has stuck by his story to date. One rumor is that Sestak, a retired three-star admiral, was offered the cabinet post as Secretary of the Navy. The White House, on the other hand, repeatedly denied any offer had been made by anyone. Now, they admit that Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, asked Bill Clinton to “speak” to Sestak about how serious he was in challenging Specter. It is important to note that after Specter changed parties in 2008 and became a Democrat he was considered by the White House to be the 60th vote Obama needed to pass his legislative agenda.
In their recent admission the White House says that Sestak was merely offered an unpaid consulting posi-tion on one of the presidential advisory boards. That story is not credible in that Sestak, as a sitting con-gressman, was barred by law from sitting on any gov-ernment advisory board. Was he expected to give up his congressional salary of $174,000 with all its perks and privileges? Not likely.
The explanation stinks for several reasons. One, Bill Clinton, at least in my opinion, cannot be trusted to tell the truth in this or any other matter. Remember, he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Even Hillary doesn’t believe that one. Second, using Clinton as the stalking horse to gauge Sestak’s seri-ousness in challenging Specter doesn’t absolve the White House of culpability. Clinton, on his own, could not make the offer. It had to come from someone in power. Offering even an “unpaid” job constitutes a felony.
So, someone is guilty of a crime unless Sestak has been lying all along. But why then wouldn’t Obama’s people have rushed to prove they were guiltless? Why let this matter stew for months with the possibility that Sestak loses the election in November? My theory is that they underestimated the seriousness of the issue and thought it would run its course in a few weeks. After all, they pride themselves on being the most “transparent and accountable administration” in the history of the country. Fortunately, we Americans know a smokescreen when we see one.
Until Sestak, Clinton and Emmanuel are placed un-der oath and interviewed by the FBI and a congres-sional panel of inquiry, they are all guilty of aiding and abetting a felony. I don’t think any one of them will run the risk of committing perjury in order to protect someone else.
GERALD F. STAHLECKER
Seaville