Today, Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) issued his statement following the statement from the White House regarding a job offer to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate race.
"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.
"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."
A couple of things don't rhyme here.
First of all, is it credible that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatches a former president to convince Sestak to drop out of the race offering him only a position on an unpaid presidential advisory board? Is it credible that Emanuel could have done this with no involvement from President Obama? Why is it that ex-President Clinton was sent as an emissary to offer a position on an advisory board-with no pay.
If Sestak's current explanation is true, and that it was a casual conversation that passed very quickly on to other issues when Sestak indicated his determination to stay in the race, then why did Sestak make such a big deal out of it in February, when he told reporters of the mysterious offer? He referred to it then as a "high ranking job".
Further, if all that was offered was an unpaid position on some advisory board while he remained in the House, then why did Sestak decline to name the job that was offered?
Why did the White House "vociferously" deny the story in February when Sestak made the claim?
Why did White House spokesman Robert Gibbs continually stonewall questions on the story from February up until today? If the conversation between Clinton and Sestak was so innocent, why did it take three months for the White House explanation to come out?
Now that all the players have gotten their stories straight, it is time for a special prosecutor to have them put those stories on the record-under oath.