Gibbs: Sestak not offered spot on intel board

posted at 9:30 am on June 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama White House continued to box itself into a corner on the scandal surrounding Joe Sestak and the attempt to push him out of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania.  Robert Gibbs denied yesterday that the unpaid position offered the former admiral was on the Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), but refused to specify what position Bill Clinton offered Sestak on behalf of Barack Obama.  At stake was the argument offered by White House counsel Robert Bauer that no laws had been broken because the offer did not involve a job with a salary:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Tuesday that Rep. Joe Sestak was not offered a spot on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board but refused to say what was dangled in front of the Democrat in an attempt to remove him from a Senate primary.

The spot offered to Sestak, Gibbs said to reporters at the White House, “didn’t constitute a lot of what you’re hearing.”

But Gibbs refused to clarify what Sestak, who won the May 18 primary and is now the Democratic nominee for Senate, was offered. …

White House counsel Bob Bauer said Friday that Sestak was offered a spot on “a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board.”

However, Sestak would have been ineligible for such a post. Sestak and the Obama administration both said the congressman would have kept his seat in the House if he took a spot on the PIAB. But the PIAB is comprised of individuals who are “outside the government.”

Gibbs confirmed Tuesday that Sestak could not have served on the PIAB.

Well, where exactly would they have put Sestak, then?  The only other standing presidential advisory board is on the economy, the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) headed by Paul Volcker.  However, like the PIAB, the PERAB also explicitly requires members to be from “outside the government,” as well as having experience in economic issues.  Given that the PERAB has a much lower profile than the PIAB and is well outside of Sestak’s competence, it seems extremely unlikely that Obama would have offered Sestak a PERAB position — and that Sestak would have seen that as a good trade for ending his political career in Congress.

Republicans also pounced on another inconsistency.  Sestak’s statement indicated that his contact with Clinton on the offer came on one occasion only, and lasted no more than 60 seconds.  However, Bauer’s memo notes “efforts” — plural — that transpired in June and July of 2009.  Unless that 60-second conversation took place at 11:59:30 PM on June 30th, 2009, it appears that Sestak may not be telling the entire truth about the offer and his consideration of it.

Byron York noticed the discrepancy, too, and reports that Gibbs supports the Bauer version of events — to the extent he answered anything at all:

Tuesday’s White House briefing was Gibbs’ first since the report, prepared by White House counsel Robert Bauer, was released on Friday.  One big question about the report concerns Bauer’s statement that, “Efforts 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…”  The plural “efforts” and the specific mention of June and July suggest that the White House plan involved more than one approach to Sestak.  Yet Sestak says he received just one call, from former President Bill Clinton, the White House intermediary in the effort.

This apparent contradiction raises obvious questions. And so a reporter said to Gibbs Tuesday, “The counsel’s memo on Friday said that efforts were made in June and July of 2009.  Were there multiple efforts and were all those made by President Clinton?”

“Whatever is in the memo is accurate,” Gibbs said.

“Okay, but, I mean, with regards to June and July, I mean, were all those President Clinton, or — ”

“I think the relationship on how that happened, yes, is explained in the memo,” Gibbs said.

But that wasn’t explained in the memo at all.  The reporter continued: “Joe Sestak said he had one conversation with President Clinton.”

“Let me check,” said Gibbs.

Quite obviously, the stories offered by everyone don’t add up.  The notion that anyone would insult the intelligence of a retired Admiral and sitting House member by offering him an unpaid job that would require his retirement from politics in order to give up a Senate bid is nothing but pure fantasy.  This administration couldn’t even build a cover story that works and get its fibs straight.  Small wonder that Kirsten Powers, an Obama supporter, blasted the Obama administration for change she can no longer believe in:

Ironically, it was Barack Obama who helped usher in these changes, tapping into a disgust with Washington ways and promising an end to those “politics as usual.”

In his campaign announcement speech, Obama highlighted his lack of Beltway experience: “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

Or not. …

Obama promised to change Washington’s culture. Instead, his White House counsel justified the White House move by pointing out that past White Houses have done Sestak-type deals, though he offered no examples.

Change indeed.

Charlie Cook, analyzing the current political environment, pointed out in a recent report that, “long-serving Democratic members of Congress identified as having ‘gone Washington’ are especially under threat.” Presumably, the same holds for short-serving Democratic presidents.

It’s not just that nothing’s changed, it’s that Obama is also completely inept at business as usual, too.

Update: Gary Gross offers another explanation of the inconsistency between Sestak and the White House on number of contacts between them, by suggesting that Clinton wasn’t the only one making offers.

Update II: Byron York e-mailed me earlier to note that Gibbs’ remarks aren’t a categorical denial that the offer involved the PIAB — just an acknowledgment that Sestak wouldn’t have qualified for it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I don’t like obama, but I’m having trouble condemning him for this when Reagan did the exact same thing.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/05/28/127238959/this-just-in-sen-hayakawa-rejects-reagan-offer-to-drop-out-for-job

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Pathetic, you LOVE Obama and would have a hard time condemning him if he destroyed the economy…oh, he’s doing that already.

clnurnberg on June 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Most ethical and transparent administration evah!!!!!!

gwelf on June 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Finally, after all of the so called birther’s complaints and unsuccessful attempts to out the “president” because he is NOT a natural born citizen, Obama is coming down hard because of his felonious Chicago-style tactics; and due also to Obama’s infamous heavy-handed no-holds-barred campaigning for his health care plan.

OBAMA FINALLY GOT HIS TIT IN THE RINGER.

Several months ago, Obama was facing certain embarrassment if his health-care plan had failed. Obama therefore campaigned hard to get every Senate vote that he could — promising ANYTHING to ANYONE that would help him. Double-crossing dirt-bag Arlen Specter crossed his own morals, his reputation, and his party to help Obama. Anything to get re-elected. So he dealt with the Devil (Obama) and it seems that the deal included the Devil trying to help get Specter re-elected at any cost.

For Obama that meant, when the time came, he would make Sestak an offer he might accept in exchange for dropping out of the primary against Specter. Note that Bill Clinton, White House Councel, Obama, and others in this fiasco are attorneys. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Talk is that patsy Bill Clinton was the one who approached Sestak to try and talk him out of running against Obama’s darling, Arlen Specter, in exchange for a high-ranking job in the White House.

What makes it patently clear that Obama and Bauer are dishonest in their reply is that Bill Clinton is NOT, as Sestak has claimed, a White House official able to fit the description given of who contacted Sestak, according to Sestak. Furthermore, you have to be an idiot to believe that the “job offer” to Sestak was simply a non-paying adviser job???? This instead of becoming a Senator with Senator’s pay and prestige? Me thinks the offer from Obama was one of a “higher” kind of job inside the White House. Can you spell f-e-l-o-n-y? Can you spell j-a-i-l t-i-m-e for Obama.

Consider that Bill Clinton is NOT a White House official. “Sestak told a Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane he had received a job offer from the White House…” – rightpundits.com…: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5926.

Is the Obama Administration lying? The Philadelphia Journal reported on Feb. 19, 2010, “A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied Sestak had been offered (a job) yesterday. Before the spokesman issued the denial a senior Pennsylvania Democrat yesterday said White House officials there were angered by Sestak’s account.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html#axzz0pH303t4O.

Today, May 28th, 2010, Obama admits there was an (illegal and felonious) offer of a high-position job made to Sestak to encourage him to leave the race (is this election tampering, too). Actions taken by Obama are illegal and punishable by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Although I believe that Obama is NOT the legitimate president, Congress may not need to impeach him, just merely walk his butt over to the nearest jail house.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Contradictions between the White House and Sestak accounts
The following contradictions exist between the official White House account and the original Sestak interview:

• White House: “White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak.”
•: Sestak: Replied “Yes” to the question “you were offered a job by someone in the White House?”

• White House: “It has been suggested that discussions of alternatives to the Senate campaign were improperly raised with the Congressman. There was no such impropriety. ”
• Sestak: Replied “Yes” to the question “Were you ever offered a job to get out of this race?

• White House: “It has been suggested that the Administration may have offered Congressman Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy in the hope that he would accept the offer and abandon a Senate candidacy. This is false.”
• Sestak: Replied “No comment” to the question “Was it Navy Secretary?”, when a simple “No” would have sufficed. In a separate interview, MSNBC says that Sestak did confirm the offer of the Secretary of the Navy position.

“If proven, the reported actions of the Obama administration are clear violations of three federal laws. The impact and fallout from documented violations, as well as the refusal of the Holder Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter, have the potential to eclipse the Watergate scandal of the early 1970’s – it is that serious.”

From: Timeline: The Sestak Bribe and the White House Coverup

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/timeline-sestak-bribe-and-white-house.html

The law regarding election bribery is very specific. Obama made the offer of a job to encourage Sestak to quit his primary opposition to Specter. It was Obama who owed Specter due to Specter’s voter for Obama’s health care bill. And, in return, Obama would give Sestak a job only Obama is qualified to offer. THE LAW AGAINST THIS TYPE OF BRIBERY WAS WRITTEN FOR THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. It is a felony. It is worth an investigation. And, it should definitively lead to Obama’s impeachment and removal.

Those individuals, senators and congressmen who do not agree that this should be investigated are co-conspirators in this felony. It’s a shame that Obama’s Chicago-style politics tries to muck-up what should be free and fair elections; elections decided by voters and NOT by crooked politicians — the law is very clear on this point.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM

The Obama response, although months in the making is good, but not that good. And, as far as “using” Clinton as a go-between — it matters not. The crime is admitted to by the WH though Bauer. Suffice it that Bauer says, in his words, that the crime was committed. Clever, maybe. But I’ve seen more clever.

The statement that Obama makes though Bauer admits that he used Clinton to offer Sestak a job in exchange for Sestak’s exiting the race — exactly what Federal Laws prohibits! Close your eyes and ears if YOU want; everyone else can see and smell the rat — an admission of guilt to felonious behavior in an attempt to afterward say that “nothing happened”. It’s like catching the bank robber on his way out of the bank; he says he didn’t get a chance to grab the money and, “nothing happened.” Should the FBI let the bank robber go because “nothing happened”? No. I think not. And, most Americans would agree — Obama committed a felony and had accomplices. Like any crook with bad habits — Obama’s nasty political bad habits are impossible for him to break.

Remember, we’re not looking to find that Clinton is a liar or not. The proof of the crime is in the Bauer admission to the felony. The best place to hide something is in plain sight — sometimes.

Jail time. Obama is toast.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Update: Gary Gross offers another explanation of the inconsistency between Sestak and the White House on number of contacts between them, by suggesting that Clinton wasn’t the only one making offers.

Well, duh. Isn’t that kind of obvious? Sestak is being truthful here, admitting to one conversation with Clinton. Somebody needs to ask him now who else approached him with job offers.

rockmom on June 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I don’t like obama, but I’m having trouble condemning him for this when Reagan did the exact same thing.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/05/28/127238959/this-just-in-sen-hayakawa-rejects-reagan-offer-to-drop-out-for-job

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM

No mention of Reagan offering a job in your article. You FAIL.

Hayakawa, who was seeking a second term at the time, was being urged by GOP officials to withdraw from the 1982 primary, a race that included, among others, Reps. Barry Goldwater Jr. & Bob Dornan, San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson, and First Daughter Maureen Reagan.

fossten on June 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM

And by the way, the bribery statue is not the only law that was broken here. If the job offer came from Rahm Emanuel or anyone other than the President or Vice President, even indirectly, there is also a violation of the Hatch Act, which forbids any federal employee from using their office to influence any election in any way. It doesn’t matter what job was offered Sestak, paid or unpaid, eligible or not. The mere fact that someone in the White House used his or her office to try to influence an election is a violation.

rockmom on June 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Obama the brilliant law “lecturer”, seems to know very little law…or is this like immigration law, if he doesn’t “like” it he doesn’t need to follow it?

clnurnberg on June 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Again, the point is: Obama got caught. And, as for dates; it’s my understanding that it was former President Slick-Willie that signed the current law into being during his term.

As for a statute of limitations on the crime; I, like many, would have to say that Obama will be prosecuted NOW for the felony he has committed. In addition, malfeasance comes to mind. High crimes and misdemeanors. Obama is toast.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

You have a more in-depth, rational argument that proves a crime existed.

I smell a RICO case… in my dreams of a legit admin, of course.

Well done.

PS – for what its worth – the moment the memo came out from Bauer – I pointed soley to his words within the memo that admit – a crime took place, namely “we knew it would be a tough primary and wanted to avoid one” That – is an explicit admission a crime occurred, whether it be the Hatch Act, or Sec 600…

Odie1941 on June 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM

PS – for what its worth – the moment the memo came out from Bauer – I pointed soley to his words within the memo that admit – a crime took place, namely “we knew it would be a tough primary and wanted to avoid one” That – is an explicit admission a crime occurred, whether it be the Hatch Act, or Sec 600…

Odie1941 on June 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Exactly. There is no official government interest here, purely political, and that is not allowed under the Hatch Act while you are a federal employee. And all White House staff as well as political appointees in the agencies are extensively trained on the Hatch Act when they are hired. It’s not a criminal statute, but the penalty is removal from office.

rockmom on June 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM

O/T but this is rich with irony…

As a CMU graduate school alumna, I received this email today:

The Alumni Association is pleased to announce that President Barack Obama will make an address this afternoon from Carnegie Mellon’s Wiegand Gymnasium. A live videostream of the event is being made available to all Carnegie Mellon alumni. For more information, please visit http://www.cmu.edu/multimedia/obama/.

According to the White House Press Secretary, the president “will discuss the state of our economy, the future we need to seize, and the path we choose to get there. He will talk about the progress we’ve made in building the New Foundation he discussed at Georgetown last year, as well as the work we have left to do.”

What, pray tell, can ObaMao contribute to a meaningful discussion of the economy? He does not have a fundamental grasp of its principles. What is this “New Foundation” that is being promoted? Who are the “we” that are “choosing” the O-path?

I have to wonder who was behind this invitation and what purpose it serves. I stopped contributing to the school’s fundraising drives as I became more aware of the nature of its invited speakers.

onlineanalyst on June 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Stinks on ice.

petefrt on June 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM

How come no one is talking about the early story about Sestak’s brother being involved?

catwrangler on June 2, 2010 at 11:33 AM

The notion that anyone would insult the intelligence of a retired Admiral and sitting House member by offering him an unpaid job that would require his retirement from politics in order to give up a Senate bid is nothing but pure fantasy

Ed, weren’t they supposedly offering Sestak the ability to retain his position in the House, as well as the supposedly unpaid job? I did not think that the WH was urging Sestak to give up politics completely.

onlineanalyst on June 2, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Beck is talking about this right now.

kingsjester on June 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM

As I have previously opined here on HA, this Sestak Affair is a big train wreck in the making and is becoming more entertaining by the day. Uecker and I are still sitting here on the FRONT ROW watching with amazement as the “best and brightest” think they are so clever. Well Gibby, it appears you continue to have some explaining to do to the American people. And it appears as though Sestak is one of a few others with similar circumstances thus, making it appear as though this is just business as usual with you guys. Let me suggest you do something courageous, tell the truth; someone in the WH is going to have to fall on the sword for King Canute or, has that person already been chosen and you all are just waiting for the right time to Rahm it through?

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on June 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM

didn’t the friday afternoon document dump before a holiday weekend pretty much guarantee that this issue was a done deal? Apparently not…

ted c on June 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I look forward to someone in this administration to do some jail time.

ted c on June 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM

It’s not just the bribery area… this is a violation of The Hatch Act as pointed out by Scott Coffina at NRO.

This story not only has legs, but has a decent chance at getting running shoes in the near future.

ajacksonian on June 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Add to the Sestak story the Colorada brouhaha, and we see a criminal pattern.

onlineanalyst on June 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM

rockmom on June 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Thank you for clarification on the Hatch Act and its penalty.

As to Sec 600…

Odie1941 on June 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

If Obama did nothing wrong, he’ll have no problem appointing a Special Prosecutor right away to clear his name.

TheBigOldDog on June 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

High crimes and misdemeanors…

doriangrey on June 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

No mention of Reagan offering a job in your article. You FAIL.

Actually, no.

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

It all depends on when the law that bans this type of activity was passed. If AdrianS is correct it didn’t become unlawful until Clinton’s administration. If that is true then bringing up Reagan just clouds the issue. The issue is did the Obama administration break the law.

chemman on June 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

How is this relevant?

oldfiveanddimer on June 2, 2010 at 12:52 PM

The same one we’ve all been offered — missionary BOHICA.

Mr. D on June 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

ya2daup on June 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.

HeroesforGhosts on June 2, 2010 at 12:25 PM

There isn’t any evidence that Reagan personally offered him a job. If you read the article at the link, an offer was never made by the Reagan administration; Hayakawa was never in contact with the White House in regards to an offer.

Besides, let’s say he did offer him a job, does that excuse Obama from doing it? So, if I murder someone, I should get away with it because O.J did? It’s a non sequitur.

Richard Romano on June 2, 2010 at 1:20 PM

No, the only theory that fits the facts is that they offered Sestak something of value (like Sec. of the Navy) and the big dummy spilled the beans about it. ***
PackerBronco on June 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM

The SECNAV thing is a stretch, I think. Obama’s SECNAV has been in office since May 2009. What, is Obama going to fire his SECNAV and appoint Sestak? Wouldn’t that stink to high heaven if it actually happened?

Outlander on June 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Filing a Hatch Act Complaint
How to File a Complaint Alleging a Violation of the Hatch Act

OSC is also authorized to investigate violations of the Hatch Act. 5 U.S.C. § 1216 (a)(2). If OSC charges an employee with a violation of the Hatch Act, those charges are adjudicated before the Merit Systems Protection Board. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1504 – 1508; 7321 – 7326. Filers alleging a violation of the Hatch Act may use Form OSC-13 (Complaint of Possible Prohibited Political Activity) to submit their allegation to OSC. Form OSC-13 can be printed from this Web site. Filers can complete the form online or by hand after printing the form. Once the form is completed it should be mailed or faxed (202-254-3700) to OSC. If filers use another format to submit a Hatch Act violation, the following information should be included:

* name, mailing address, and telephone number of the complainant, and a time when the complainant can be safely contacted, unless the matter is submitted anonymously;

* the department or agency, location, and organizational unit complained of; and

* a concise description of the actions complained about, names and positions of employees who took these actions, if known to the complainant, and dates, preferably in chronological order, together with any documentary evidence the complainant may have.

Complaints should be sent to:

Hatch Act Unit
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, DC 20036-4505.

Enforcement

After investigating an alleged Hatch Act violation, OSC may seek disciplinary action against an employee before the Merit Systems Protection Board. When violations are not sufficiently egregious to warrant prosecution, OSC may issue a warning letter to the employee involved.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Obama = EGREGIOUS.

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Besides, let’s say he did offer him a job, does that excuse Obama from doing it? So, if I murder someone, I should get away with it because O.J did? It’s a non sequitur.

Richard Romano on June 2, 2010 at 1:20 PM

YES!!! THANK YOU!!!

That is the best response to the cries of “Bush [or other GOP boogeyman] did it too!” we get from the libs whenever we criticize the latest stupid thing Obama just did.

If “Bush was the worst President evaaaar”, then how can “Bush did it too” ever be a justification for any action?

Mary in LA on June 2, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Hatch Act of 1939
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
For other uses, see Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity. Named after Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, the law was officially known as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities.

The act precluded federal employees from membership in “any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.” During the Second Red Scare, this designation was interpreted to include communist and labor organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

AdrianS on June 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Watergate redux…

The longer this stonewalling goes on, the worse the situation gets…

Khun Joe on June 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM

If it walks like a Watergate, Quacks like a Watergate, looks like a Watergate then it must be a Watergate!
Calling Senator Sam Ervin! Calling Senator Howard Baker, Calling H. R. Haderman! Report for duty.

Herb on June 2, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.

Sir Walter Scott had it right lo those many years ago. Apparently no one at the WH got the message.

vnjagvet on June 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Bob Bauer has received hundreds of thousands of dollars on an over $2 million dollar law bill to Perkins and Coie from Obama for America (now Organizing for America). But hiding all his records and that pesky eligibility thing is just a red herring I bet. Bob is trustworthy, just like Baghdad Bob Gibbs and that delicate genius Barry. These neo-statist corruptocrats have laid enough turds around to fertilize Kansas. When is ok to to assume everything they touch and do is crap?

allahallahoxenfree on June 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM

vnjagvet on June 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive… — Sir Walter Scott

But when we’ve practiced for a while, how vastly we improve our style! — J.R. Pope

:-P

(Thank you for your service, vnjagvet!)

Mary in LA on June 2, 2010 at 6:22 PM

What “position” was he offered, then?
The same one we’ve all been offered — missionary.

Mr. D on June 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The same one we’ve all been offered — “Grab your ankles and say, ‘Thank you, sir; one more time, please?’”

KyMouse on June 3, 2010 at 8:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2