Thursday, 13 May 2010 11:58 PM
Attorney General Eric Holder dodged GOP questions Thursday dealing with allegations that the White House illegally offered a job to Rep. Joe Sestak in exchange for him getting out of the Pennsylvania Senate race, according to Fox News.
Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat, leveled the charge in February, telling a Philadelphia television anchor he was offered the federal job to drop out of the primary race against Senator Arlen Specter.
But Sestak did not withdraw and is still competing against Specter in Tuesday's election -- but the congressman has not elaborated on his charge publicly since the February interview.
During a Capitol Hill hearing Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the accusation would amount to "multiple felonies" and wanted to know what Holder was going to do about it. He said he was "deeply concerned," with the election just five days away.
Issa grew visibly frustrated as the attorney general declined to respond to his questions.
"It is the department's policy ... not to comment on pending matters," Holder said at the end of a tense back-and-forth. "That is not what we do."
Issa suggested Holder's reluctance to answer meant there was no investigation.
"You don't answer or apparently investigate. ... You're not investigating whether it's a false statement by a member of Congress or a crime by the White House. What are we to do?" he said.
Read the entire story at Fox News.
Per Judge Andrew Napolitano, if this is actually true, Holder could be put under oath and asked about the offer… threat… or bribe to keep Sestek from running against Arlen Spector (the WH pick and a race that is having its primary today) and if he admits to the charges he could be guilty of treason. This incident should remind all of us that both Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama took oaths to defend and uphold our laws and could be indicted for treason, fired, recalled, or impeached for their actions if we get into the arena of felonies and treason. The present administration is good at invoking and using ‘the Chicago Way’, which often questionably sits at the edge of the law and would have to be interpreted.
No comments:
Post a Comment