At his Thursday press conference, Barack Hussein Obama said:

“I can assure the public that nothing improper took place”

in the curious case of Joe Sestak and the Pennsylvania Senate primary—but Mr. Obama declined to say what, exactly, took place. Imagine that!

Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to do an investigation, even though that is exactly what is needed here because clearly something wrong took place. The AGeneral has the power, without White House interference, to order an investigation or to decide whether one isn’t merited.

Let’s recount the events surrounding the “deal making” to remove Joe Sestak from the Democrat primary in Pennsylvania in favor of turncoat candidate Arlen Specter.

From a Larry Kane February 18th interview with Sestak:

“Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race? (The contest against Arlen Specter).

Sestak didn’t flinch .

“Yes,” he answered.

“Was it Navy Secretary?”, I asked

“No comment.”

He proceeded to talk about staying in the race but added that “he was called many times” to pull out.

Later, I asked,  “So you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

He said, “Yes.”

When the taping stopped, Joe Sestak looked surprised .

“You are the first person who ever asked me that question.”

What evolved after the interview between Kane and Sestak which didn’t air until February with the audio 21 KYW Newsradio on the 18th?:

Kane called the White House Press Office and played the interview for the individual who answered the phone.  She said someone would call him back.  A few minutes later, another individual called.  She said the White House would call back with a reaction “shortly.” That was 3:45 in the afternoon.

The report aired all night without a White House response.

At 6:45 the next morning, 15 hours later, a Deputy Press Secretary called.  She said, “You can say the White House says it’s not true.”

How do you define Obfuscate?

On May 19^th, a day after Sestak’s upset victory over Specter, the February interview became went viral.

Crimes and Criminal Procedure – 18 USC Section 600 – Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity: (Emphasis by LC)

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

AMENDMENTS
1994 – Pub. L. 103-322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000″.
1976 – Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine.
1972 – Pub. L. 92-225 struck out “work,” after “position,” inserted “contract, appointment,” after “compensation,” and “or any
special consideration in obtaining any such benefit,” after “Act of Congress,”, and substituted “in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office” for “in any election”.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.

Whoever made the offer to Joe Sestak will have been guilty of a felony and could, if found guilty, be sentenced to five-years in prison.

White House counsel Robert Bauer says that Rahm Emanuel enlisted Bill Clinton “to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board.” And the post “would have been uncompensated.”

“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,” Mr. Bauer wrote. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

The Wall Street Journal comments:

So a two-term President who is now ambassador to the world is running errands for the White House chief of staff, and the plumb job he has at his disposal is a seat on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, or perhaps the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships? As a simple matter of political respect, Mr. Clinton could at least have thrown in a consulting gig with Yucaipa.

Mr. Clinton made the approach during a phone call in June or July 2009, according to an official familiar with the matter, who provided additional details in a briefing. Mr. Sestak declined the offer, the memo said.

Representative  Sestak, talking to reporters Friday, mimiched the White House’s terminology to describe the offer as a “presidential board,” not his earlier description of a job offer. One of the possible advisory posts the White House had in mind, according to the person familiar with the matter, was on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Its 16 members are unpaid and may not be federal government employees, meaning that Mr. Sestak may have had to leave his House seat to accept the position.

Sestak said Mr. Clinton called him and said:

“Joe, if you stay in the House, Rahm has brought up being appointed to a presidential board.”

When Mr. Sestak interrupted the former president to refuse, he said:

Mr. Clinton chuckled and replied, “Joe, I knew you were going to say that.” The two of them never discussed it again, Mr. Sestak added.

So we have a retired Navy Admiral and current member of the US House of Representatives exposing a “bribe” by the White House in 2009 and verified in February 2010, with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel at the center of this mess.

Ask yourself – who do you believe and whom do you trust? If you picked any of this ilk then you may suffer from an intense mental disease. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) described his frustration:

“Let’s be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies.”

“We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast.”

Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is overseeing the federal response, to express an overdue truth:

“The government doesn’t have everything we need to solve this problem.”

Gov. Jindal is frustrated by the failure of the federal government to produce the 8 million feet of oil-blocking booms it asked for back on May 2nd and 3rd. So far Louisiana has only received 815,000 feet of boom, and then the federal government has failed to place it in the correct locations.

To make matters worse the Obama administration regulators continue to deny Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast’s marshes and the gulf. Federal regulators have so far refused to permit the state to act, fearing the unintended long-term damage to local wildlife. So instead of action, the oil continues to float on shore threatening the livelihoods of millions of Louisianans.

The immediate response coming from Barack Obama was his early announcement that he was sending lawyers to the scene to investigate. I wasn’t aware of any legal beagles having expertise in plugging oil leaks 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. And we have the continuous and ridiculous blame game by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who wouldn’t know an oil drill from a dental drill, once again rolled out his charming “boot on the neck” of BP metaphor to deflect blame. Right after Obama this guy may be one of the most incompetent people in the administration. But like that infomercial declares, “Wait, there is more!”

Congress is in the midst of 20, yes 20 show trials with Rep Edward Markey of Massachusetts quick to blame BP for its inadequate response without looking around him and toward the White House to provide us with a description of the real scene of the crime.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson ordered BP to cease using a “toxic” chemical dispersant that breaks down oil. Jackson was quickly obliged to acknowledge that she didn’t really know what the toxicity of the dispersant was and had no better ideas.

To find out who is in charge in the Gulf region the Obama administration flew Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen up to Washington to provide some clear answers as to who was in charge of the operation. I don’t think Obama and his ilk like Admiral Allen’s point of view.

Interior Secretary Salazar has said of BP:

“If we find that they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately.”

When asked about Salazar’s comments Admiral Allen responded:

“Well, I would — I would — I would say that that’s more of a metaphor. … You need equipment and expertise that’s not generally within the government — federal government, in terms of competency, capability or capacity. There may be some other way to get it, but I’m a national incident commander. And right now, the relationship with BP is the way I think we should move forward.”

Politicians are too busy blaming BP, who is ultimately responsible costs of the clean-up and liability under current federal law, but some are already calling for an increase in gas taxes and passing the cost of cleanup onto consumers.

In the spirit of not letting a good crisis go to waste the Obama administration is discussing more and stricter regulation on the oil industry while they sit back, make excuses , demonstrate their complete incompetence about the situation and begin to exact more pain on the American public. Dealing with the Gulf oil spill and enforcing regulations on the books isn’t what Washington does well, writing new legislation and adding new regulations is their way of telling the public they’re on the job.

Obama has gone beyond his own Peter Principle, in fact, I believe he had reached his “level of incompetence” well before reaching the Oval Office. Obama reportedly cut aides short recently, ordering them to “plug the damn hole.” Obama is no Hans Brinker and by all accounts dating back to well before his nomination by Democrats, he is incompetent. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill highlighted the inadequacies of the existing coverage and generated public outrage. The end result was the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) — the first comprehensive law to specifically address oil pollution to waterways and coastlines of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama and his ilk ignored pleas from Louisiana Gov. Jindal, he ignored the disaster in the gulf and he ignored power granted to him to at least attempt to limit the damage of an offshore oil spoil. Now, weeks into the environmental disaster the Obama administration is pointing fingers, making excuses and doing nothing constructive to clean up spilled oil and provide help to plug the leak 5,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico surface.

Below is specific information from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. (Non-heading emphasis in bold by LC)

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

With the enactment of OPA on August 18, 1990, Congress consolidated the existing federal oil spill laws under one program. The 1990 law expanded the existing liability provisions within the CWA and created new free-standing requirements regarding oil spill prevention and response. Key OPA provisions are discussed below.

Spill Response Authority

When responding to a spill, many considered the lines of responsibility under the pre-OPA regime to be unclear, with too much reliance on spillers to perform proper cleanup. OPA strengthened and clarified the federal government’s role in oil spill response and cleanup. OPA Section 4201 amended Section 311(c) of the CWA to provide the President (delegated to the USCG or EPA) with three options: perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the spill), monitor the response efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities. The revised response authorities addressed concerns “that precious time would be lost while waiting for the spiller to marshall its cleanup forces.”

The federal government determines the level of cleanup required. Although the federal government must consult with designated trustees of natural resources and the governor of the state affected by the spill, the decision that cleanup is completed and can be ended rests with the federal government. States may require further work, but without the support of federal funding.

National Contingency Plan

OPA expanded the role and breadth of the NCP. The 1990 law established a multi-layered planning and response system to improve preparedness and response to spills in marine environments. Among other things, the act also required the President to establish procedures and standards (as part of the NCP) for responding to worst-case oil spill scenarios.

Tank Vessel and Facility Response Plans

As a component of the enhanced NCP, OPA amended the CWA to require that U.S. tank vessels, offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities prepare and submit oil spill response plans to the relevant federal agency. In general, vessels and facilities are prohibited from handling, storing, or transporting oil if they do not have a plan approved by (or submitted to) the appropriate agency.

The plans should, among other things, identify how the owner or operator of a vessel or facility would respond to a worst-case scenario spill. Congress did not intend for every vessel to have onboard all the personnel and equipment needed to respond to a worst-case spill, but vessels must have a plan and procedures to call upon—typically through a contractual relationship—the necessary equipment and personnel for responding to a worst-case spill.

In 2004, Congress enacted an amendment requiring non-tank vessels (i.e., ships carrying oil for their own fuel use) over 400 gross tons to prepare and submit a vessel response plan. Congress reasoned that many non-tank vessels have as much oil onboard as small tank vessels, thus presenting a comparable risk from an oil spill. Moreover, the international standards for oil spill prevention apply to tanker and non-tanker vessels alike. Thus, the 2004 amendment brought the U.S. law more in line with international provisions.

Double-Hull Design for Vessels

The issue of double hulls received considerable debate for many years prior to OPA, and it was one of the stumbling blocks for unified oil spill legislation. Proponents maintained that doublehull construction provides extra protection if a vessel becomes damaged.44 However, opponents argued that a double-hulled vessel might cause stability problems if an accident occurred, thus negating the benefits. Stakeholders also highlighted the impacts that a double-hull requirement would entail for the shipping industry (e.g., cost and time of retrofitting, ship availability). The OPA requirements for double hulls reflected some of these concerns.

The act required new vessels carrying oil and operating in U.S. waters to have double hulls. However, OPA provided certain exceptions, depending on the size of the vessel (e.g., less than 5,000 gross tons) and its particular use (e.g., lightering). For older vessels, OPA established a staggered retrofitting schedule, based on vessel age and size. Many of the age-based deadlines have already passed. By 2015 at the latest, the law requires that all oil-carrying vessels operating in U.S. waters have double hulls.

Liability Issues

OPA unified the liability provisions of existing oil spill law, creating a freestanding liability regime. Section 1002 states that responsible parties are liable for any discharge of oil (or threat of discharge) from a vessel or facility to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone of the United States (i.e., 200 miles beyond the shore). (LC Note: BP is not attempting to escape liability, the CEO has publicly stated BP responsibility.)

Regarding the existing oil spill law prior to OPA, Congress recognized that “there is no comprehensive legislation in place that promptly and adequately compensates those who suffer other types of economic loss as a result of an oil pollution incident.” OPA broadened the scope of damages (i.e., costs) for which an oil spiller would be liable. Under OPA, a responsible party is liable for all cleanup costs incurred, not only by a government entity, but also by a private party. In addition to cleanup costs, OPA significantly increased the range of liable damages to include the following:

• injury to natural resources,
• loss of personal property (and resultant economic losses),
• loss of subsistence use of natural resources, lost revenues resulting from destruction of property or natural resource injury,
• lost profits resulting from property loss or natural resource injury, and
• costs of providing extra public services during or after spill response.

OPA provided several defenses from liability: act of God, act of war, and act or omission of a third party. Although these defenses are more narrow than those for oil spills under the pre-OPA framework (primarily the CWA), they are similar to those of the Superfund statute, established in 1980 for releases of hazardous substances.

Except for certain behavior, including acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct, OPA set liability limits (or caps) for cleanup costs and other damages. Until 2006, liability limits for vessels were based on vessel carrying capacity, generally $1,200 per gross ton. As an example, the liability limit for the 2004 Athos tanker spill in Delaware River was approximately $45 million.

OPA requires the President to issue regulations to adjust the liability limits at least every three years to take into account changes in the consumer price index (CPI). Despite this requirement, adjustments to liability limits were not made until Congress amended OPA in July 2006. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-241) increased limits to $1,900/gross ton for double-hulled vessels and $3,000/gross ton for single-hulled vessels. Furthermore, the Coast Guard made its first CPI adjustment to the liability limits in 2009, increasing the limits to $2,100 and $3,200, respectively.

Mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs), like the Deepwater Horizon unit involved in the April 2010 incident in the Gulf of Mexico, are first treated as tank vessels for their liability caps. If removal and damage costs exceed this liability cap, a MODU is deemed to be an offshore facility for the excess amount.

Offshore facility liability is capped at “all removal costs plus $75 million”; onshore facilities and deepwater port liability is limited to $350 million. Although these limits are much higher than under the pre-OPA liability structure, Congress did not alter the limits with the tank vessel increases.

Obama’s first response? Call in teams of lawyers! All other Obama stooges have put the wagons in circle, blame BP over and over again, but have done nothing to take on the devastation required by the Federal government and Office of the President. We have in place the most incompetent group of people ever to work in a presidential administration and that goes right to the top. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: