And…bang!
Can you say James McCord?
In a revelation that will send shock waves through the
American political landscape, the Denver Post last night revealed
that Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff has now
reluctantly admitted he discussed “three possible jobs with the
deputy chief of staff of the Obama administration — all
contingent upon a decision by Romanoff not to challenge U.S. Sen.
Michael Bennet.”
The White House Deputy Chief of Staff is Jim Messina, a
Denver-born Obama aide who served as the chief of staff of the
Obama presidential campaign. Messina serves under Rahm Emanuel,
the former Illinois Congressman and current White House Chief of
Staff.
The Post also published an e-mail from Messina to
Romanoff dated September 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm. The e-mail
discusses the jobs of Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin
America and Caribbean, and Director, Office of Democracy and
Governance. Both of those positions are under the United States
Agency for International Development. The third position
mentioned was Director of the U.S. Trade and Development
Agency.
The Romanoff admission — which comes after months of
silence, denials and evasions by the White House
beginning in February — comes on the heels of a letter to
the White House from Congressman Darrell Issa and two
congressional colleagues demanding access to e-mails and phone
logs relevant to the Sestak Jobsgate affair — the allegation
first made by Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak that
the White House offered him a job if he would abandon his own
Senate challenge to incumbent Democrat Arlen Specter.
On Friday, the White House issued a
report by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, saying that White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had approached former President
Bill Clinton to contact Sestak. The report, which contradicts
Sestak, says that “efforts” in the plural were “made in June and
July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be
interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive
Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate
primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide
him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a
high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.
The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while
important to the work of the Administration, would have been
uncompensated.”
The positions discussed in the Messina-Romanoff e-mail are
all compensated positions.
Sestak says something else — that former President Clinton
made one phone call to him, the offer was only briefly discussed
and he, Sestak, rejected the offer.
The report was sufficiently self-contradictory that Issa
and colleagues Lamar Smith of Texas and James Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin felt compelled
to send their letter to White House Counsel Bauer requesting
— by June 9 — the following:
1. All records and documents created by or produced
to the Office of the White House Counsel in the course of the
investigation.
2. All records and
documents created or produced to the Office of the White House
Press Secretary in the course of the investigation of the
Sestak matter.
3. All notes
or transcripts of interviews conducted by lawyers in the Office
of the White House Counsel with witnesses in the Sestak matter,
including but not limited to the White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel, President Bill Clinton, Rep. Joe Sestak and
Richard Sestak.
4. All notes or
transcripts of interviews conducted by staff in the Office of
the White House Press Secretary with witnesses in the Sestak
matter, including but not limited to White House Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel, President Bill Clinton, Rep. Joe Sestak and
Richard Sestak.
5. All
records, documents, interview notes or transcripts referred to
either explicitly or implicitly or otherwise relied on to draft
the May 28, 2010 Sestak Memorandum.
6. All documents,
e-mails and phone records related to conversations White House
staff had with or about Rep. Joe Sestak and any members of Rep.
Sestak’s campaign.
The revelation of the once-secret Messina-Romanoff
correspondence will only heighten the pressure on the White House
to comply with the Issa letter.
The break in the Sestak Jobsgate Affair is reminiscent of a
similar revelation by Watergate burglar and ex-CIA agent James
McCord. After he was caught with four accomplices breaking into
the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate
Hotel complex on June 17, 1972, it quickly developed that the
five men had a connection to the Nixon Committee to Re-elect the
President. Yet there was no proof that higher-ups in the Nixon
White House knew anything about the break-in or any subsequent
efforts to cover up a connection. Convicted of conspiracy,
burglary and wiretapping, McCord then wrote a letter to Judge
John J. Sirica saying that the reason for his non-cooperation
during his trial was that he had been pressured by the White
House to keep quiet.
McCord’s famous letter, which instantly helped break open
the Watergate investigation, would eventually force President
Nixon’s resignation and send his closest and most powerful aides,
including White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, to
prison.
The McCord letter said:
TO: JUDGE SIRICA March 19, 1973
Certain questions have been posed to me from your honor
through the probation officer, dealing with details of the
case, motivations, intent and mitigating circumstances.
In endeavoring to respond to these questions, I am
whipsawed in a variety of legalities.
First, I may be called before a Senate Committee
investigating this matter. Secondly, I may be involved in a
civil suit, and thirdly there may be a new trial at some future
date. Fourthly, the probation officer may be called before the
Senate Committee to present testimony regarding what may
otherwise be a privileged communication between defendant and
Judge, as I understand it; if I answered certain questions to
the probation officer, it is possible such answers could become
a matter of record in the Senate and there-fore available for
use in the other proceedings just described. My answers would,
it would seem to me, to violate my fifth amendment rights, and
possibly my 6th amendment right to counsel and possibly other
rights.
On the other hand, to fail to answer your questions may
appear to be non-cooperation, and I can therefore expect a much
more severe sentence.
There are further considerations which are not to be
lightly taken. Several members of my family have expressed fear
for my life if I disclose knowledge of the facts in this
matter, either publicly or to any government representative.
Whereas I do not share their concerns to the same degree,
nevertheless, I do believe that retaliatory measures will be
taken against me, my family, and my friends should I disclose
such facts. Such retaliation could destroy careers, income, and
reputations of persons who are innocent of any guilt
whatever.
Be that as it may, in the interests of justice, and in
the interests of restoring faith in the criminal justice
system, which faith has been severely damaged in this case, I
will state the following to you at this time which I hope may
be of help to you in meting out justice in this case:
1. There was political pressure applied to the defendants
to plead guilty and remain silent.
2. Perjury occurred during the trial in matters highly
material to the very structure, orientation, and impact of the
government’s case, and to the motivation and intent of the
defendants.
3. Others involved in the Watergate operation were not
identified during the trial, when they could have been by those
testifying.
4. The Watergate operation was not a CIA operation. The
Cubans may have been misled by others into believing that it
was a CIA operation. I know for a fact that it was not.
5. Some statements were unfortunately made by a witness
which left the Court with the impression that he was stating
untruths, or withholding facts of his knowledge, when in fact
only honest errors of memory were involved.
6. My motivations were different than those of the others
involved, but were not limited to, or simply those offered in
my defense during the trial. This is no fault of my attorneys,
but of the circumstances under which we had to prepare my
defense.
Following sentence, I would appreciate the opportunity to
talk with you privately in chambers. Since I cannot feel
confident in talking with an FBI agent, in testifying before a
Grand Jury whose U.S. Attorneys work for the Department of
Justice, or in talking with other government representatives,
such a discussion with you would be of assistance to me.
I have not discussed the above with my attorneys as a
matter of protection for them.
I give this statement freely and voluntarily, fully
realizing that I may be prosecuted for giving a false statement
to a Judicial Official, if the statements herein are knowingly
untrue. The statements are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
[signed] James W. McCord, Jr.
The letter, as with the Romanoff
revelation of a secret White House e-mail, was a
bombshell.
Aside from revealing the secret-role of the White House, it
also made plain McCord’s lack of trust in “talking with an FBI
agent” — because the Justice department was run by the
Nixon-appointed Attorney General Richard Kleindienst — the Eric
Holder of his day. Holder, eager to investigate potential
wrongdoing by BP in the Gulf oil spill disaster, has shown a
noticeable reluctance to investigate the White House for
suspected criminal wrongdoing.
The Romanoff side of the Sestak Jobsgate Affair has gotten
relatively little coverage until recently. It has been hammered
almost daily in Denver by KHOW radio talker Peter Boyles and, at
the national level, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Hannity has also
investigated the issue on his popular television show, discussing
the Romanoff angle frequently.
Here in this space, calls — unreturned — were placed in
the last several days directly to Mr. Romanoff, who refused to
return them. Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin was told by a
Romanoff aide as recently as the weekend that Romanoff, in
Littwin’s words, “won’t answer why he won’t answer.”
The reason for Romanoff’s Code of Omerta is now abundantly
clear.
On the other end of his e-mail was the White House Deputy
Chief of Staff — Rahm Emanuel’s trusted number two — and who
knew beyond that?
Like the intimidated James McCord of Watergate, Andrew
Romanoff of the Sestak Jobsgate Affair couldn’t bring himself to
speak up.
Then he did.
Now, somebody in this Obama White House
is in big trouble.
Big trouble.
And the old Watergate question is about to
re-surface:
What did the President know — and when did he know
it?
