I believe I have the right to say, "I told you so!" 

One day after President Obama's Press Conference we received word from his administration that confirms Congressman Sestak's claim that he was offered a position in the Obama Administration in return for him dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democrat Senate Primary.  Oddly enough, the overture is reported to have come from William Jefferson Clinton as arranged by Rahm Emmanuel.  The report indicated that the position was unpaid and thus is presented to us as having no value. 

What a deal!!!  Congressman Sestak was believed to be willing to drop out of the Senate Primary for a position of no value.  Wouldn't we all do the same?   I am sure there are some unpaid positions in the Administration, perhaps even some positions that would allow Congressman Sestak to retain his Congressional seat while working for another branch.  Perhaps there is a powerful committee or a council that the Congressman would like to sit on that would allow him to serve without there being a conflict of interest between the checks and balances of the two branches.  But, I don't know how any position that would persuade anyone to leave a Senate Primary could have no value or it would never be offered. 

Did President Clinton commit his second(?) felony?   Did Emmanuel commit a felony?  What was Obama's part in all this?   Was he aware that an offer of a position, SOMETHING OF VALUE, would be made by Clinton to get Sestak out of that race?  Was Specter involved?  Perhaps Specter should resign his current seat if it can be shown that he was involved in this overture.   One might imagine that this was where the entire thing began, with Specter.   After all, he needed Obama's support and expected his support for changing his party and caucusing with the Democrats.   If this was a harmless, no value position, why then did Obama not mention this during his press conference?   Was his administration working behind the scenes with Specter, Clinton, Sestak and other involved parties in the administration to paint the picture in a way that it could be presented to the public with minimal damage?  Were they stretching the truth in a manner that would allow all parties to skate?   Were they vetting the time and place of everyone's reportedly innocent participation to ensure that no one could be reported to be in two places at one time?   Were they creating a web of deceit?   Why was Obama willing to allow Rahm Emmanuel to solicit the assistance of Clinton to make the overture to Sestak?   Why was Clinton willing to do this for a man against whom Clinton holds a grudge?  Clinton did not like Obama calling him a racist for his remark after the S. Carolina primary in 2008.   What did Clinton get in return for helping Obama and what again did he get in return for being included in the recent disclosure?  

The one consistent thing in the Democrat explanation of felonious acts is their attempt to minimize the act to something that was simply "nothing at all".   President Clinton's perjury was, after all, only about sex.   The position offered Sestak was unpaid and hence "had no value" and thus could not be considered a bribe.   Business as usual.   Nothing improper here.   I remember a Democrat who was quoted as saying that the seriousness of a charge was sufficient to require an investigation of George W Bush's military record regardless of whether any evidence existed that might support a charge that was being made.  But this was when Democrats wanted to investigate a Republican.  We can all understand how that might be different.