WaPo offers this report.
This one in Ohio.
The Washington Post offers this important report.
AP offers this report.
It could happen.
Richard Greener and George Kenney have written this LA Times oped.
I am scheduled to be on the “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” show at 10:30 pm Eastern/7:30 pm Pacific. These things are always subject to change or cancellation.
UPDATE: Apparently, after my comments tonight I may not get a return invitation to FOX any time soon.
The normal business hours of the Supreme Court have passed, with no decision on the stay request in McComish. I would guess we won’t see anything then before Tuesday at the earliest. Meanwhile, Lyle Denniston sees a hint of an appeal in SpeechNow.
Politico offers this report.
The NY Times Caucus blog has this post, which begins: “President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of a Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, people briefed on the matter said Friday.” The article also states that “The office of Robert F. Bauer, the White House counsel, has concluded that Mr. Emanuel’s proposal did not violate laws prohibiting government employees from promising employment as a reward for political activity because the position being offered was unpaid. The office also found other examples of presidents offering positions to political allies to achieve political aims.”
I expect we’ll see a formal report issued today (not coincidentally on the Friday of a three-day weekend), following briefings to the Times and Post.
My earlier thoughts on this controversy, tentative as they are, are here.
UPDATE: Here is the Sestak memorandum from the White House Counsel’s office. There is no detailed parsing of statutes, but rather a statement of facts consistent with what was reported in the Times and the conclusion that “alternative paths of service” offered to prevent a divisive primary is both common and “fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”
Mark Ambinder offers thoughts in line with my initial take: “It is hard to see, quite frankly, how this account implies any violation of criminal law, and how any law that governs the intersection of the executive branch and electoral politics would intend to criminalize routine and innocuous political horse-trading, especially since the President is dual-hatted, in our system, as the leader of his political party.” He also links to these thoughts from Prof. Painter, the former Bush ethics adviser.