May 28-31, 2010
May 28 07:57 Things Aren't Adding Up May 28 13:42 They Expect Us To Believe This? May 29 20:05 Sestak Story Getting Less Believeable By the Minute May 31 04:05 Minnesota's Sunday Election Notes
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Things Aren't Adding Up
After reading Scott Johnson's post titled " A Thug Too Far, Part 5 ", I started thinking about something from his post. In his post, Scott quoted Big Government's Mike Flynn. Here's what Flynn wrote :
First, the DC police official says emphatically that their police officers did not cross into Maryland...except when they did. It seems one of their officers, according to their official, made a wrong turn and didn't fully understand the DC/Maryland border and may have 'briefly' been inside Maryland. A wrong turn and a brief excursion through the Maryland suburbs is hardly worth mentioning if that is all that really happened. No one would notice, nor remark on, an errant 30 second diversion through Maryland streets. This story has the classic feel of a diversion; a pat, simple excuse to cover up any other behavior that comes to light. Any future eyewitness accounts of DC police cars at the scene? Yeah, that was that one cop who didn't know her jurisdiction's borders and was 'lost'.That information set off some red flags for me. Here's what I found:
Second, the Maryland police official says, contrary to other statements made by his department, that they were immediately notified by DC police that the protesters were entering their jurisdiction. According to the official, Maryland police met with DC police at the border to get a situation report and then proceeded to the protest. When they arrived, the official claims, the protesters were already dispersing.
Remember that the official says that the site of the protest is "one or two blocks from the DC border." Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot...
Fourteen buses start crossing the Maryland border (at which point we're supposed to believe the Maryland police were immediately notified), they find parking on residential streets, unload their protesters, assemble 500 people on a private lawn, engage in threatening verbal abuse long enough to force a 14 year old boy to lock himself into a bathroom...and the Maryland police get there as they are dispersing? Is their police headquarters in Delaware.
Thankfully, I don't live in Montgomery County. This is the kind of public safety and police protection for which they pay ridiculously high property taxes? They get a 'situation report' that 500 protesters are targeting a private citizen's home and they send 3 police officers? Really? They could only spare 3 officers on a Sunday in Montgomery County?
The Montgomery County Chief of Police is J. Thomas Munger . According to his bio, Chief Munger is a member of PERF, which stands for Police Executive Research Forum. According to PERF's webpage , here's what they stand for:
The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national membership organization of progressive police executives from the largest city, county and state law enforcement agencies.Being a progressive police chief doesn't mean that they're corrupt. It just informs me what his political beliefs are. What I don't know is whether his political beliefs would lead to a different response to this event involving SEIU thugs as opposed to a different group with different political leanings.
What's worth noting is that PERF supplied the police chiefs for Eric Holder's event earlier this week in which he criticized Arizona's immigration/law enforcement law. A number of PERF's police chiefs criticized Arizona's immigration/law enforcement law from the podium, too.
I'm perfectly willing to reserve judgment on that subject and let the facts speak for themselves.
When I watched Megyn Kelly interview the two police chiefs, I knew something didn't add up. After it was reported that Nina Easton was the next door neighbor to BofA deputy general Greg Baer and that she called the Montgomery County Police Department , I knew that we'd learn what really happened.
During his interview with Megyn Kelly, Montgomery Police Department Captain Paul Stark admitted that their police officers met with DC police "along the DC line and shared information". He then said that the 3 Montgomery County police officers who met with DC police then went to the protest and that, by that time, the crowd was dispersing. He later said that it was a peaceful protest. Does this look like a peaceful protest?
Seeing that picture raises more questions for me. If the police weren't there, which Capt. Stark admitted they weren't, how would they know that the protest was peaceful? Are they taking the SEIU thugs' word on it? Further complicating that answer is the fact that he was shown the video of the unruly protest during his interview with Megyn Kelly. SEIU's actions on that video say that the 'protest' was anything but peaceful in nature.
Frankly, it bothers me that Capt. Stark would call it a protest. What I saw looked more like an act of intimidation, a warning to executives of financial institutions like BofA and AIG wherever they live. This act of intimidation was, I believe, a message to executives that SEIU won't hesitate in using barbaric tactics and threats of intimidation to achieve their goal.
It's time that the Montgomery County Police Department launched an investigation into what happened that day on Greg Baer's property. As Ms. Kelly notes, while SEIU's actions don't rise to a felony, they certainly rise to the level of misdemeanor crimes.
The other thing that Capt. Stark said that I find troubling was that they couldn't do anything because they weren't there to witness SEIU's actions. That's absurd in the extreme. Using that logic, police wouldn't be able to prosecute violent criminals because violent criminals rarely notify the police that they're going to commit an act of violence.
There's just too many questions that still are unanswered for this act of intimidation to disappear. Unless the Montgomery County Police conduct a thorough investigation into SEIU's acts of intimidation, this incident will cement in Americans' minds that one of President Obama's key allies is corrupt and potentially menacing.
Chief Munger and Capt. Stark need to know that they're being held accountable for conducting an exhaustive investigation. SEIU needs to know that their thuggish behavior will be prosecuted each time their actions warrant it.
Originally posted Friday, May 28, 2010, revised 14-Feb 2:00 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-May-10 09:11 AM
Yawn.
They Expect Us To Believe This?
This morning, the White House Counsel's office issued this statement in an attempt to explain what did and didn't happen with regards to Rep. Sestak. Here's the text of the statement:
MEMORANDUM FROM ROBERT F. BAUER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSELDoes this administration expect us to believe that they thought there was a good chance of persuading Rep. Sestak of dropping out of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania by offering him "a high-level advisory" job that wasn't compensated? Here's what the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes tweeted minutes ago:
SUBJECT: Review of Discussion Relating to Congressman Sestak
Recent press reports have reflected questions and speculation about discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak in relation to his plans to run for the United States Senate. Our office has reviewed those discussions and claims made about them, focusing in particular on the suggestion that government positions may have been improperly offered to the Congressman to dissuade him from pursing a Senate candidacy.
We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law.
Secretary of the Navy. It has been suggested that the administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false. The President announced his intent to nominate Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy on March 26, 2009, over a month before Senator Specter announced that he was becoming a member of the Democratic Party in late April. Mabus was confirmed in May. At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy.
Uncompensated Advisory Board Options. We found that Congressman has publicly and accurately stated, options for Executive Branch service were raised with him. Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in 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 for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.
White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.
Relationship to Senate Campaign. It has been suggested that discussion of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman. There was no such impropriety. The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House. By virtue of his career in public service, including distinguished military service, Congressman Sestak was viewed to be highly qualified to hold a range of advisory positions in which he could, while holding his House seat, have additional responsibilities of considerable potential interest to him and value to the Executive Branch.
There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals, discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.
Did WH seriously think that Sestak would have accepted "unpaid" spot in admin? The more you think about that, the more implausible it seems.Hayes later tweeted this:
So a seat on a "presidential board" is the same as a high-ranking administration job, the description Sestak previously agreed to? Ummm, no.It's insulting that this administration thinks we're that gullible. Either that or these guys are exceptionally stupid in their political calculations. (HINT: I don't think they're "exceptionally stupid.")
As usual, Ed asks the right question , then gives us the right answer. First, here's Sestak's statement:
Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.Here's Ed's Q and A:
There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.
Excuse me, but a position on a Presidential Board is not a "job" in any sense of the word. Sestak has repeatedly insisted that the White House offered him a job to get him to withdraw from the race. Now we're at the who's-lying stage, and it may well be everyone.Ed, I couldn't agree more. The White House explanation isn't persuasive, to put it politely. Rep. Sestak's statement of agreement doesn't pass the straight face test either. The bottom line is this: It's now apparent that Rep. Sestak has backtracked from his oft-repeated story that he was offered a job.
I hope Pat Toomey replays this over and over and over again to remind people that Rep. Sestak is, first and foremost, just another corrupt yes man that'll do whatever President Obama tells him to. Rep. Sestak dramatically changed his story the minute the White House told him to.
Pennsylvania, is that the type of representation you want?
Posted Friday, May 28, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-May-10 09:09 AM
You ignore the oil contamination arising from eight years of Bush - Cheney playing footsie with the Big Oil powers, (and with Coleman serving as friend to Nasser Kazeminy and his deepwater Gulf shore oil bisiness and as point man and bill sponsor for more offshore deepwater drilling); but your teapot is steaming up over this "tempest"?
Gary, you have no sense of perspective. Billion dollar crony crookery and look the other way regulation is not offensive, but Chicago style politics playing out in Pennsylvania bothers you?
You cannot get over Arlen's seeing the light I suppose. I would think your people would be happy to see him have a comeuppance, but I guess it was not satisfying because you could not be the ones to give it to him.
Get back on tract to real things. Banks too big to fail having gotten bigger by consolidation, lack of jobs arising from the Bush financial meltdown - from lack of real regulation all those GOP years in the White House, and look for decent bipartisan ways to undo all that mischief and keep people in their homes and employed.
Bachmann does not care to be useful, but the rest of you GOP guys can. It is the American thing to do. Wave that flag.
Sestak Story Getting Less Believeable By the Minute
From the minute the White House issued their statement on the Sestak Scandal, people have been questioning the White House's version of events. (Notice I didn't imply that it was the truth.) With each passing minute, more questions are being raised . What's worse (for Sestak and the Obama administration) is that information is surfacing that says Rep. Sestak, as an elected official, wasn't eligible to serve on this board :
According to the Board's official Web site :Rich Lowry has 3 important questions that need answering:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.
Since when is a former three-star admiral going to be impressed by an offer of a position on an advisory board?Compare those insightful questions with the Washington Post's kid glove treatment of the Sestak Scandal . Here's the opening paragraph of their editorial:
If Sestak was exaggerating all along, why didn't the White House expose him months ago when it would have embarrassed him and perhaps help drag Specter over the finish line?
Does Rahm Emanuel give up so easily that after making Sestak an insulting offer of an advisory board slot he would have stopped trying to entice Sestak out of the race?
OKAY, if all the facts are out, then we would agree: Nothing inappropriate happened. On the basis of the memorandum issued Friday by White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer, the Joe Sestak job-for-dropping-out-of-Senate-race scandal is a non-scandal, except for the White House's bungling of the episode. The unnecessary coverup, it turns out, is always worse than the non-crime.It's disheartening that the genuflectors at the Washington Post give the White House memo that much credibility. They shouldn't trust that statement that quickly or without asking a ton of questions (like Rich Lowry's) first. Here's the final paragraph of the Washington Post editorial:
Of course, Mr. Clinton's involvement inevitably makes any story juicier, but still: The administration could have disclosed these facts in February, when the matter first came up. Instead, it stonewalled with assurances that nothing inappropriate happened, but offered no facts to support that high-handed assertion. It continued this tactic after Mr. Sestak won the primary this month. A little transparency early on would have gone a long way to making this story die down before it became a conflagration.The Washington Post editorial board actually hits on something worth questioning. They've essentially admitted that they believe Bauer's statement. For the sake of discussion, let's stipulated that Bauer's statement is accurate. Why would this administration not turn Rep. Sestak's works against him? It would've ended his senatorial campaign instantly.
Had Mr. Emanuel granted an interview to a Jake Tapper or a Major Garrett on the subject of Sestak, he could've used the interview to categorically deny that the administration offering Sestak the Navy Secretary position. Had they done that, Sestak's senatorial campaign would've been over.
Since the Obama administration's goal was to support Sen. Specter, why wouldn't they pounce on the opportunity to stop Specter's opponent's campaign dead in its tracks?
As for the Washington Post's asking why there wasn't more "transparency" on this issue, didn't it dawn on them that the reason why there wasn't greater transparency might've been because there's more to this story than this administration is admitting? During the Nixon years, Bob Woodward certainly didn't accept such self-serving statements at face value.
Salena Zito's and Mike Wereschagin's reporting in this morning's Pittsburgh Tribune Review highlights something most people have brushed over. Here's what I'm refering to:
White House Counsel Robert Bauer, who wrote the Obama administration's report on the offer, denied that a crime occurred.Notice the difference in the paragraphs between the use of singular and plural nouns. The Obama administration's statement said that "efforts (plural) were made in June and July of 2009" but Sestak's comment was that President Clinton talked to him about the advisory position, that Sestak refused and "the conversation (singular) moved on to other subjects."
"Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in 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 for which he was highly qualified," Bauer wrote.
Sestak declined the offer.
"The former president said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects," said Sestak, who served as an adviser to Clinton during his administration, when Sestak was an admiral in the Navy.
This is important, I believe, because we're talking about different principles in this incident saying different things. It's quite possible that Rep. Sestak had a single conversation with President Clinton about the Senate race. Bauer's statement might accurately reflect the White House's involvement in the Sen. Specter/Rep. Sestak primary campaign.
If the White House used President Clinton just once to talk with Rep. Sestak, which we can't rule out based on the principles' statements, which person or people made other offers to Rep. Sestak after President Clinton made initial contact with Rep. Sestak? I'm wondering what other offers were made to Rep. Sestak, too.
This paragraph is filled with sanctimonious statements:
"I felt for my own personal accountability I needed to be honest, and I said yes," Sestak said. "I mean, I didn't try to parse the word there. And then I said after that 'no comment' to the follow-on questions that were asked, because I talked about my role in the matter, and I thought that was important for me to do."Really? There's no parsing of words? Let's accept that as truth. If President Clinton did make a single call to persuade Rep. Sestak to drop out of the race, which high-ranking administration official or officials made other offers to Rep. Sestak? It's important we remember that Bauer's statement said that multiple contacts were made in June and July, 2009. Surely, they didn't call Rep. Sestak to make him the same offer that President Clinton made, right?
At this point, it's apparent that this isn't the last statement that the Obama administration will have to make. People will persist in asking whether other offers were made and who made them. Doing this document dump on the Friday before Memmorial Day weekend was meant to bury the information when nobody was paying attention. This administration has attempted this multiple times. Thus far, it hasn't buried anything because people persist in asking additional questions when people return from long holiday weekends.
If a senior administration official offered Rep. Sestak a job like Secretary of the Navy or something similar, then that official had better hire a good attorney because he'll need it.
Posted Saturday, May 29, 2010 8:13 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-May-10 08:48 AM
You know Gary I have an interesting question. When Valerie P. who wasn't a covert CIA agent exposed what was the reaction.
Lets see we have to have a special prosecutor to get to the bottum of it.
After the special prosecutor does his investigation and announces that the person who exposed Valerie P was a state department official who the left like they continued to blame Scotter Libby and Karl Rove.
They wanted people prosecuted and were disappointed that one person they wanted prosecuted wasn't.
Yet no cries for people to be prosecuted. They take the word of the administration official. They don't even think a crime was committed.
Can't they be consistent on their outrage?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 03-Jun-10 06:30 AM
Ethical is ethical. Unethical is the opposite. Most can see the difference, although proving a breach of anything criminal is a separate question.
Everyone should applaud Sestrek, since he is improving the pool of Dems by one less Republican-lite individual.
The thing with Romanoff and Bennett, I am surprised you did not yet publish about it.
To me, what is most reprehensible is that Blue Dog types are being courted and coddled when true Democrats would challenged.
On your side, it is dislike of RINO types. In my view, Obama is wrong for wanting to quell grassroots alternatives in favor of those in the way of progress.
What we get is the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum thing where Obama is no different from Bush except for the host of do nothing for a paycheck jobs being offered to members of a different but similarly unwholesome mob.
Perhaps the GOP is ahead of the Dems in purging the business as usual BS.
However, either side wanting reform has to push against mainstream media bias.
The Emmer thing, GOP activism; warts and all, extremism and all.
The Dems, Kelliher, who is okay but not realistically the best choice. At least Mark Dayton is there to jog the DFL insiders and their smug attitudes.
They need to open up and quit foisting Elwyn Tinklenbergs onto the ballot.
At least this cycle in the Sixth District the endorsed candidate, Tarryl Clark is excellent and not a Tinklenberg. And the challenger, Reed, is even better.
Will there be ANY Republicans who will go as far as Reed on systemic reform - pledging to not accept any salary raise or government paid health care until every American is covered, and pledging to never lobby after serving in the Hou8se, and to sponsor parallel legislation aimed at such systemic things as the automatic pay raises that your Republicans are so willing to accept while jawing oppositely, that government spending needs to be curtailed.
Where is the action to fit that talk? From a Democrat, Gary.
I do like Maureen Reed.
Comment 3 by Rix at 04-Jun-10 12:04 AM
How come no one has mentioned that for Obama to "select" who is allowed to run for office is voter disenfranchisement?
Minnesota's Sunday Election Notes
It's becoming a tradition. If At Issue, Almanac and Esme Murphy's shows have interesting guest, then I'll be watching them, then recapping them here. This week proved more profitable than others, thanks to Robyne Robinson's gaffe-filled debut. Remember that the political definition of a gaff is when you accidently let slip a truth you'd rather not have out there for public consumption.
Here's an exchange between WCCO's Esme Murphy and Robinson:
Murphy: Tell us what you've been doing the past couple days because you've been traveling a lot.WHOA!!! Robyne Robinson just admitted that the Entenza-Robinson ticket plans on growing government "as much as possible." Let's be clear about this: Discovering that Democrats want to grow government isn't surprising. Getting them to publicly admit that they want to "grow government as much as possible" is plain surprising because it's sloppy.
ROBINSON: We've been criss-crossing the state. Matt and I have gone up north to the Range, downstate to the southeastern part of the state, all the way from Duluth to Rochester and Winona, just getting to talk to constituents out there. We believe that the other DFL candidates haven't really been out talking with the people outstate & they sense that. They really feel sometimes like it's just a race that happens in the Twin Cities and in Duluth. We want to bring everyone in,.We really believe like we've got to shake up the old paradigms. We've got to bring everybody in.
You know, we've got a $5.5 billion deficit. We've got so many people who have been cut from so many different services. They need help & we need to do it,and we can't do it by cutting & we can't do it by taxing. We have to do it by growing & we have to grow our government as much as possible .
In 2007, Speaker Kelliher told reporters that the newly-installed DFL majority in the House was " a fiscally moderate caucus ", not because she believed it but because that's what the public wanted to hear. At a time when the public is resenting trillion dollar deficits and Washington's reckless spending, willfully admitting that you're planning on growing government "as much as possible" is political suicide in a general election.
What's more is that Ms. Robinson said essentially the same thing during Tom Hauser's interview with Matt Entenza and Ms. Robinson:
ROBINSON: It's not working at the Capitol. We need a 21st century government for a 21st century state.By itself, Ms. Robinson's statement early Sunday morning seems relatively harmless. Coupled wih her restating it with greater emphasis during a later interview with WCCO's Esme Murphy simply verifies as fact that the Entenza and Robinson don't share Minnesota's priorities.
Implied in Ms. Robinson's statement is that we need big government to have a prosperous state. I don't think Minnesotans will agree with that opinion.
Following his interview of Entenza and Robinson, Hauser then spoke with former DFL state senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and Sarah Janacek. Here's what Sarah said about whether there was a frontrunner as of right now:
SARAH: I do not think there is a frontrunner but I think in the end, and I'm glad that Tom Emmer didn't take the no new taxes pledge, people are feeling taxed enough and so you have Horner and the Democrats who are on the record wanting to increase taxes and you've got Emmer, who doesn't want to raise taxes and I don't see how he doesn't win.Based on Minnesotans' oft-stated support for no tax increases, I'd say Sarah's prediction is exactly right. Here's what Reichgott-Junge said:
EMBER REICHGOTT-JUNGE: I think those numbers are going to change, Tom, as people define Tom Emmer and talk about his record and his comments on the floor.That's what the Alliance for a Better Minnesota is already doing with their Tom Emmer's Minnesota website. One read of ABM's blog will prove that this organization's intentions are anything but honorable. It's essential that Republicans counter ABM's lies and distortions.
Technroati: Interviews , Esme Murphy , Tom Hauser , Robyne Robinson , Matt Entenza , Spendaholics , Speaker Kelliher , Tax Increases , DFL , Sarah Janacek , Ember Reichgott-Junge , Tom Emmer , MNGOP , Allliance for a Better Minnesota , Election 2010
Posted Monday, May 31, 2010 4:05 AM
No comments.
