Image 01

Posts Tagged ‘Administration Officials’

Obama Vetting Disaster Continues: 2nd TSA Nominee Withdraws

Friday, March 26th, 2010

President Obama needs to make some more calls to find a third nominee for TSA head as his first two nominees have now withdrawn, meaning America will continue on without a TSA Chief

When President Barack Obama first came into office and forwarded his slate of Cabinet picks, many ran into trouble and some withdrew over issues that arose in their backgrounds. At the time, many observers wondered why the President and his team had not done a more thorough job of vetting potential Obama Administration officials so as to avoid such problems. In month 14 of the Obama Administration, the vetting issue has arisen once again as the Obama’s second nominee for the head of the Transportation Security Agency (“TSA”), Robert Harding, has withdrawn from considering this evening amidst controversy over his activities surrounding his firm’s defense contract that, after an audit, was found to be improper and his firm was forced to return two million dollars to the Defense Department.

Robert Harding Has Tonight Withdrawn from Consideration for TSA Head

The AP terms it “another setback” for the Obama Administration:

President Barack Obama’s second choice for transportation security chief has withdrawn from consideration because of questions over his background as a defense contractor.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Harding took himself out of the running Friday night as head of the Transportation Security Administration, another setback for Obama after his first choice withdrew in January.

Harding said the distractions caused by his work as a defense contractor would not be good for the administration or the Homeland Security Department. The TSA is part of that department.

Obama's First TSA Chief Nominee, Errol Southers, Withdrew After GOP Criticism of his illegal use of FBI background checks

Obama’s first pick, Errol Southers, also withdrew under withering criticism from Republicans about an incident during Southers’ time at the FBI when he illegally accessed criminal databases regarding his estranged wife’s boyfriend and then distributed the information on the boyfriend to local police. It is truly shocking that Obama could not find a single qualified person, without a controversial past, in the entirety of the United States to lead the TSA despite having 14 months to do so, as the President’s first priority is the safety of the American people.   Perhaps Obama is having a hard time finding someone qualified to be TSA Chief who also strongly believes in unionizing the TSA employees.

The GOP had questioned the “entanglements” of Harding during his confirmation hearings this week, with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) demanding more details on Harding’s contractor ties before holding the vote on his nomination:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday questioned whether retired Maj. Gen. Robert Harding would face ethics problems because of his past business entanglements with the Pentagon if he is confirmed to head the Transportation Security Administration.

Questions have swirled around Harding Security Associates — the company Harding founded in 2001 and sold in 2009 — and contracts the company and its affiliates have with the TSA.

While Harding told lawmakers he would abide by strict White House ethics guidelines, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said she would insist he answer more questions in writing before the committee votes on his nomination.

Harding’s old company has ties to firms with major contracts with the TSA, including one to provide full-body scanners. According to the White House, Harding will recuse himself from dealing with contracts involving his former company until July, a year after he sold it.

But the abbreviated Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, which lasted just over an hour so members could go to the White House to watch President Barack Obama sign the health care bill, was smooth sailing compared with the tougher grilling Harding is expected to face when he goes before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Congressional aides said senators were likely to press Harding on a more than $7 million contract his firm had to provide civilian interrogators for prisons in Iraq in 2004. The contract was subject to a Defense Department audit, and the company eventually had to return $2 million to the government, an aide said.

Apparently Harding decided that the details of his firm’s return of two million dollars to the Defense Department after an audit were too painful to disclose, and therefore he withdrew this evening. Obama’s vetting negligence has not abated over the course of the last 14 months, as the issues over the fraudulent contract and returned money certainly would have arisen during any professional vetting done before Harding’s nomination.

Regardless, America now stands without a nominee to head the TSA, let alone a TSA Administrator, for the foreseeable future. Considering the ongoing threats to Americans from international terrorism, Obama’s ongoing failure to fill this critical post so late into his Administration is sure to raise more questions about the overall competence of the Obama Administration. Indeed, Democrats themselves have made the point many times before Southers withdrew that lacking a TSA head is a serious threat to America’s national security. Harry Reid spoke of the “serious potential consequences” for America of having an empty TSA post:

“Not only is this a failed strategy, but a dangerous one as well with serious potential consequences for our country.”

One Southers supporter, a Los Angeles Police Official, noted that the Christmas Day attempted bombing proves that “no further delays” are acceptable to fill the TSA post:

Marshall McClain, the president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association, said the Senate should have acted sooner to confirm Southers.

“Friday’s terrorist attack on U.S. aviation makes it all the more imperative that there be no further delays in filling this crucial position,” he said.

Not to be outdone, Senator Bennie Thompson (D-MS) claimed that the failure to have a TSA head seriously hobbles the agency’s effectiveness:

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (Miss.) also attacked DeMint, saying Tuesday that TSA needs an administrator to run at full capacity and suggested security could be weaker because of the lack of leadership.

“If TSA is to become the kind of nimble, responsive organization the American people deserve in times like this, it will need a Senate-confirmed administrator,” he said. “If nothing else, the events of last week highlighted this lack of leadership.”

Perhaps Senator Reid and Senator Thompson will now direct the same level of concern and frustration at the Obama Administration for its second failure to appoint an acceptable nominee for TSA head. President Obama must focus on this issue of the vacant TSA seat next week, instead of the planned focus on the political sideshow of campaign rallies to sell his Obamacare package, and chose a competent, scandal-free nominee to fill this void in our country’s homeland security leadership immediately.

UPDATE: Ed at Hotair underscores the point about the egregious lack of professional vetting as epitomized by Harding’s TSA nomination:

Harding had been one of The 300 during the campaign — one of the large number of national-security advisers Obama claimed whenever anyone challenged his experience in such matters. Perhaps there really is safety in numbers. No one in the McCain campaign or in the RNC appeared to notice that the candidate of Hope and Change, the Washington insider running against Washington, had an adviser who had overcharged the government as a defense contractor. Obama may have figured that no one would spot it when Harding was out in the open as a nominee, either.

This is a fairly egregious vetting error, even for an administration becoming known as incompetent at assessing potential appointees. Harding didn’t commit violations of personal tax returns, after all. He spent several years as a government contractor, and the audit and overcharge are public record. For that matter, so was Southers’ dip into sensitive databases for his own personal vendettas. Does anyone at the White House actually bother with background checks, or do they just pull names out of a hat?

The Times reports that the White House has no third choice for this position. We can expect several months to pass before Obama gets around to appointing a replacement for a key national-security post. Perhaps by the time he’s finished with this term, we may actually get one that can survive a confirmation hearing.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wow: Obama to Order Banks To Eliminate Monthly Payments from Unemployed Borrowers; UPDATE: Obama Orders WaPo to Rewrite Article, WaPo Complies

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

President Barack Obama, fresh off his Obamacare victory, is now set to unveil a new mortgage initiative to force banks to slash or waive monthly payments from the unemployed

In what appears to be the next step in the path of increasing federal government control over the US economy, the Obama Administration is preparing a new initiative to order banks to slash or eliminate the monthly payments due to banks from unemployed borrowers. This crass political maneuver by the Obama Administration is clearly intended to get unemployed Americans to vote Democrat in November 2010 to keep the free money gravy train going. With this proposal, America may have truly reached the unsustainable age of free money as the new rules “could allow a borrower to make no payments at all”.  Apparently the idea that a contract, signed by free people, should be binding on both sides is now losing steam in America:

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it’s tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower’s income, which would typically be their unemployment insurance, for up to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to make no payments at all.

Of course, anyone with an ounce of economic training knows that this new Obama initiative creates a massive incentive for individuals to either remain unemployed or become unemployed to incur in the benefits of the lowered or eliminated mortgage payments from the government. This new move to buy off unemployed Americans while pushing some of the cost off onto the banks also works to paint potential GOP opponents of such plan as lackeys of the “fat cat” banks. Indeed, Obama appears to have made the calculation that new initiative to buy off the unemployed with free mortgage payments is more likely to work to generate Democratic votes in November 2010 than his floundering “job creation” programs in the Stimulus and other legislation.

The new mortgage “relief” plan also intends to push banks to cut principal from first mortgages and cancel second mortgages altogether with new “financial incentives” to lenders who “reduce the principal owed on a loan”:

For one, the government will for the first time provide financial incentives to lenders that cut the balance of a borrower’s mortgage. Banks and other lenders will be asked to reduce the principal owed on a loan if it this amount is 15 percent more than their home is worth. The reduced amount would be set aside and forgiven by the lender over three years as long as the homeowner remains current on the loan.

Until recently, administration officials had been reluctant to encourage lenders to cut homeowner’s principal balance, worrying this would encourage borrowers to become delinquent. But as federal regulators have struggled to make an impact on the foreclosure crisis, those qualms have weakened.

Second, government will double the amount it pays to lenders that help modify second mortgages, such as piggyback mortgages, which enabled home buyers to put little or no money down, home equity lines of credits. These second mortgages are an added burden on struggling homeowners, especially when their total debt, as a result, is greater than their home value.

Considering the absolute tragedy that the Obama Administration’s interventionist mortgage policies have been to date, with foreclosures spiraling upward and new home sales at an all-time monthly low in February 2010, the additional Obama interventions into the mortgage market announced this evening seem like more of the same counterproductive policies.

Regarding the amount of increased deficit spending to be caused by the new mortgage initiative, the Washington Post and Obama Administration have nothing to say, claiming that no new spending will be required. Indeed, the Washington Post has no specific mention of the actual cost of this new plan, as WaPo simply parrots the Administration line that there is “no new taxpayer funds will be needed” because the money already paid back into TARP by banks will be used again instead of used to retire debt of the United States, as the TARP legislation requires:

The new initiatives are expected to take effect over the next half year and will be funded out of money remaining in the $700 billion bailout program for the financial sector, administration officials said. They said no new taxpayer funds would be needed.

Considering the success the Obama Administration has just had using a clearly fraudulent claim that Obamacare is “one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history”, this move to avoid a damaging admission that Obama’s plans will actually spend TARP money that is now slated to retire federal debt by simply claiming that “no new taxpayer funds will be needed” without any pesky details is simply the latest dodge on deficit policy by the Obama Administration.   Sadly, the establishment media appears to be uncritically accepting this latest misleading Obama deficit claim, just as the prior Obamacare deficit claim was seconded and endorsed by the media.

However, the largest threat to the American workforce and overall economy from this new mortgage initiative is the powerful incentive created for individual Americans to both become and/or remain unemployed to obtain the government relief from making mortgage payments and the additional incentive created for borrowers to default on their loans and obtain relief from the principal amounts due on their loans.  Sadly, the prediction from the right that the Obama Administration would use repaid TARP funds as a “slush fund” leading up to the November 2010 elections appears to be coming true, and the federal spending which reduces or eliminates monthly mortgage payments for the unemployed if the first major payment from the “slush fund” this election season. One can only hope that the strength and vitality of the American economy can overcome the ongoing, destructive moves to expand the federal government’s control of the economy.

UPDATE: Apparently ordering the banks, car companies, health insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, energy companies and states around is not enough for the Obama Administration, as they apparently also ordered the Washington Post to completely rewrite the headline of the article cited above, and WaPo, sadly, agreed. First, here’s the accurate headline chosen by the nominally “independent and objective” newspaper Washington Post:

“Obama administration to order lenders to cut mortgage payments for jobless”

That is an accurate headline as it actually describes the new initiative planned by Obama. Now, this morning, after some scolding by the Obama Administration, the Washington Post editors trashed the old headline, and replaced it with an Axelrod-drafted left wing talking point:

“Obama readies steps to fight foreclosures, particularly for unemployed”

The actual policy planned by Obama, of course, hasn’t changed. However, now millions of Americans will see that new headline, a pure dollop of spin directly from the Obama Administration, instead of the accurate former headline. Indeed, the word “order” now does not appear anywhere in the article. This latest manipulation of the establishment media by the Obama Administration is just another piece of evidence that proves everyday Americans can no longer trust the media to accurately report upon the activities of the Obama Administration.

Sadly, the tens of millions of hardworking Americans who actually pay their mortgages, on time, every month, are once again going to get the short end of the stick from the Obama Administration, as noted in a moment of candor by the NYT:

The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which is straining the economy and putting millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the new initiatives could well spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

The NYT also reports upon the risky plan of the Obama Administration to use the Federal Housing Authority to engineer principal reductions in mortgages, which, of course, creates a serious systemic risk of the collapse of the FHA should housing prices not rebound. Once again, the Obama Administration is laying off future risk on the American taxpayer to obtain short term political benefits now:

The administration’s earlier efforts to stem foreclosures have largely been directed at borrowers who were experiencing financial hardship. But the biggest new initiative, which is also likely to be the most controversial, will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans for borrowers who simply owe more than their houses are worth.

About 11 million households, or a fifth of those with mortgages, are in this position, known as being underwater. Some of these borrowers refinanced their houses during the boom and took cash out, leaving them vulnerable when prices declined. Others simply had the misfortune to buy at the peak.

Many of these loans have been bundled together and sold to investors. Under the new program, the investors would have to swallow losses, but would probably be assured of getting more in the long run than if the borrowers went into foreclosure. The F.H.A. would insure the new loans against the risk of default. The borrower would once again have a reason to make payments instead of walking away from a property.

Many details of the administration’s plan remained unclear Thursday night, including the precise scope of the new program and the number of homeowners who might be likely to qualify.

One administration official cautioned that the investors might not be willing to volunteer any loans from borrowers that seemed solvent. That could set up a battle between borrowers and investors.

This much was clear, however: the plan, if successful, could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a renewed downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red.

Another helpful addition to the WaPo article ordered by the Obama Administration is this quote from the National Community Reinvestment Center (“NCRC”), which, of course, is a hard left organization that is pushing for all the same government controls over the banks and elimination of “principal” amounts due on mortgage loans that Obama wants:

“We would prefer to see a required principal forgiveness program. But this is helpful,” said David Berenbaum, chief program officer for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a nonprofit housing group. “This is another tool that will help consumers weather the crisis.”

Of course, the WaPo whitewashes who the NCRC really is by calling them simply a “nonprofit housing group.” Unmentioned by WaPo is the extreme left wing posture of the NCRC and their long term alliance with none other than ACORN, as the NCRC and ACORN have been working together for years to bring “reform” to the housing industry.

A brief ride in the way-back machine (to Winter 2000) uncovers some truth about the NCRC: they were the key force, indeed the “umbrella group” behind the left wing group’s use of Clinton to change the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) to force banks to make “no money down” loans to unqualified borrowers, which, of course, led us to the housing crisis today that Obama’s new initiative is designed to “fix”:

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled “The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.” “Timely comments,” the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, “can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.”

The Clinton administration’s get-tough regulatory regime mattered so crucially because bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. “To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application,” advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, “lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations.” By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, “CRA is the backbone of everything we do.”

In addition to providing the nonprofits with mortgage money to disburse, CRA allows those organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans.

Umbrella group NCRC and others, of course, are in deep, passionate love with the Obama Administration, as Obama has appointed one of their ranks to run Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and doubled down on the Clinton-era CRA changes to increase the funneling of fees to left wing pressure groups. The NCRC release shortly after Obama’s Inauguration is indisputable evidence of the sad reality that present federal mortgage policy has been hijacked by hard left interest groups:

The stars and planets may be in nearly perfect alignment to support the cause of community-based organizations in their fight for those who reside in low- and middle-income neighborhoods.

Barack Obama, a former community organizer, is the president of the United States. “Can we really believe that?” asked Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) to loud cheers at the 2009 National Conference of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

Obama has chosen to head the Department of Housing & Urban Development Shaun Donovan, a former community organizer in New York City, who became that city’s housing czar.

Donovan reports HUD has been given “a seat at the big people’s table” as the Obama administration grapples with the foreclosure crisis and the effort to unclog the nation’s credit markets.

To participate in the push for economic recovery, HUD will get $13.6 billion under the economic stimulus bill—the $790 billion American Recovery & Reinvestment Act—including $4 billion for energy-efficient modernization and renovation of public housing, $2.5 billion for a special allocation of HOME funds to increase the preservation and production of tens of thousands of units of affordable housing, $2 billion for 12-month funding of Section 8 project-based housing contracts, $2 billion to mitigate the impact of foreclosures through the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties, $1.5 billion to prevent homelessness and $1 billion in community development block grants that will be distributed to state and local governments to spend on their own priority projects.

Donovan was loudly applauded by an audience that comprised myriad friends from his community organizing and housing advocacy days when he pledged that HUD will “be a partner and not an impediment” to the work of community-based organizations and that the department will make a major effort to promote and enforce fair housing laws.

It is way too early to predict whether the goodwill that the Obama administration has brought to the table will bear fruit in low- and middle-income communities, but the good feelings evident at the NCRC gathering have long been missing from scene.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wow: GOP Congressman Issa Set to Call for Special Prosecutor to Investigate Obama Administration

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

House Congressman Darell Issa (R-CA) Is Prepared to Call for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor To Investigate White House Promise of Job for House Member Joe Sestak (D-PA) In Exchange For Ending His Bid to Defeat Democratic Incumbent Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA)

In a story that could snowball into a major national issue overnight, House GOP Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) is now prepared to call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate House Democratic Member Joe Sestak (D-PA) claim that someone in the White House offered Sestak a job (reportedly Secretary of the Navy) in exchange for Sestak abandoning his quest to unseat incumbent Democratic Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA):

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, told CBS News Wednesday that he will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the White House if it does not address Rep. Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

“If the public doesn’t receive a satisfactory answer, the next step would be to call for a special prosecutor, which is well within the statute,” Issa (pictured) told Hotsheet.

The California Republican has been pushing for the White House to provide details of conversations between Sestak and administration officials in the wake of Sestak’s comment during a radio interview last month that he was offered a high-ranking administration job in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Asked if that job was secretary of the Navy, Sestak declined to comment. His press secretary told CBS News that the lawmaker stands by his original statement that he was offered the job in exchange for an administration post. Sestak did not drop out of the race.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs Has Stonewalled for Months Regarding Questions About Possible Criminal Conduct by White House Officials in Offering Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the race against Senator Arlen Specter

As noted above, Sestak is sticking by his claim that the White House made the possibly illegal offer, despite substantial White House pressure to back off. Here’s the blow by blow from CBS News regarding the White House response to Seskak’s claim of the job offer, which, if true, may amount to a federal crime under bribery statutes and possibly the Hatch Act:

On March 10th, Issa sent a letter to White House lawyer Robert Bauer asking for details about communications between Sestak and the White House. In the letter, he pointed to statutes he said could have been violated if Sestak was offered a quid pro quo arrangement in which he would be given an administration job in exchange for leaving the race.

Issa said the move may have violated anti-bribery provisions of the federal criminal code as well as prohibitions on government officials interfering in elections and using federal jobs for a political purpose. Violation of each provision is punishable by up to one year in jail.

The White House did not respond to Issa’s letter by its March 18 deadline. Reporters have asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about the inquiry on six occasions.

On February 23rd, Gibbs said he had not looked into the matter. On March 1st, he said he had not made any progress on it. On March 9th, he said he did not have an update with him. On March 11th, he said he did not have anything additional on the matter. On March 12th, he said he did not have any more information on it.

On March 16th, Gibbs finally addressed the situation.

“Look, I’ve talked to several people in the White House; I’ve talked to people that have talked to others in the White House,” he said. “I’m told that whatever conversations have been had are not problematic.”

The Controversy Over the Allegedly Illegal Joe Sestak Job Offer Has Led Some to Wonder "What Did President Obama Know, And When Did he Know it?

Gibbs and the rest of the White House obviously do not want to disclose all relevant information regarding when the offer was made to Sestak, what the Obama Administration’s version of the terms offered were, and, of course, what President Obama knew and when he knew it. Issa has now sent two letters to the White House on the subject, and Issa yesterday stood by his claim of a White House cover up and demanding full disclosure by April 5th:

In an interview Wednesday, Issa stood by the notion that the White House is engaged in a cover up.

“I believe not answering our questions when in fact they have asked and gotten them answered” meets the standard for a cover up, he said. He compared the Obama White House to that of former President Richard Nixon and said it was not living up to its promises of transparency.

“Democrats, when they were not in the White House, had real objections to that idea of, ‘whatever I want to do is OK,'” he said, referencing objections to Bush administration policy. “The public has a right to know who asked what, when. A congressman has made an allegation that is likely a felony.”

Issa said that if he doesn’t receive “satisfactory answers” to his letter by its April 5th deadline, “then the next step would be to call for a special prosecutor to investigate.”

He said it is now “a lot easier” for the White House to respond because Gibbs “has the raw information that we asked for.” Asked if he expected his call for a special prosecutor to be answered, Issa said, “I’m a practicing Christian, I have always believed in the redemption of souls.” He said that if the issue generates enough publicity Democrats may feel forced to appoint a prosecutor out of “the fear of the voters.”

Issa said that while backroom dealing is not uncommon in politics, an explicit quid pro quo arrangement crosses the line, and that there is no way to know exactly what happened until either Sestak or the White House provides details. Asked why he was taking up the fight, he pointed to efforts by Democrats on the House Oversight committee to examine Bush administration e-mails and the Valerie Plame matter and said he had the right to look into any potential violation of the Hatch Act.

For a President and White House that has made repeated claims to be the most transparent Administration in history, the facts of the Sestak job offer stonewalling are quite jarring. The Obama Adminisration should wise up to the fact (as proven by the Nixon and Clinton Administrations) that it is not the crime, but the cover up that is most dangerous to the long term political stability of Obama Administration. Americans deserve full disclosure of all information the White House has about Sestak’s claim of an improper job offer, and most importantly, a full disclosure of what top White House officials and President Obama himself knew, and when they knew it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,