Pa. Gov. Rendell Says What Happened to Sestak 'Happens All the Time' in Washington
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," June 2, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, HOST: The Sestak job offer scandal is a story the White House wants to go away. Now they want the American people to stop thinking about it and they want reporters to stop asking about it.
But propaganda minister Robert Gibbs' wish didn't come true at yesterday's White House briefing. Let's you and I take a look as a reporter tries to get some real answers from my good pal, Robert.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The counsel memo this Friday said that efforts were made in June and July of 2009. Were there multiple efforts and were all those made by President Clinton?
GIBBS: I — whatever is in the memo is accurate.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Oh, whatever is in the memo is accurate.
Robert, I've got the memo right here in my hand. I've read the memo. Nowhere does it definitely state that it was President Clinton and President Clinton alone who contacted Congressman Sestak.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: OK. But, I mean, with regards to June and July, I mean, were you all those President Clinton or —
GIBBS: I think the relationship on how that happens, yes, is explained in the memo.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: One conversation with President Clinton?
GIBBS: Let me check.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HANNITY: He said one conversation, did you hear that? A reporter in the room just correctly pointed out that Congressman Sestak has said only one conversation with Bill Clinton. So why then does the memo say efforts — not one effort — but efforts were made both in June and July. It obviously means that somebody else spoke with Sestak other than Bill Clinton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And just one more, as far as it said that it's an unpaid position. Does that make a difference in the view of the White House that it would be an unpaid position as opposed to a paid position?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GIBBS: Again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
HANNITY: Robert, this isn't hypothetical. An offer was made, the American people deserve to know exactly what happened.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIBBS: The situation was an unpaid position and didn't constitute a lot of what you hear.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: OK. Just one more. Sorry. But the intelligence advisory board which most reports said this offer was for — that would be a position a member of the House cannot serve on. Is that —
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GIBBS: That's how I understand it.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But the memo had said that this would be — serve in the House and serve on a presidential advisory board.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GIBBS: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Was that —
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: How could he —
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Yes. How would that work?
GIBBS: He couldn't.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HANNITY: He couldn't. So here we have a top White House official admitting that the administration's version of all of this doesn't make sense. You just heard Robert Gibbs admit that Sestak could not have legally served in the job he was supposedly offered and we're supposed to take this memo at face value?
This is getting interesting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why would you offer that —
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: — that wasn't the offer, then?
GIBBS: Uh — I — I — before you —
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What position was it? What board was it, then?
GIBBS: I — I'd refer you to the memo.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HANNITY: The memo is not going to put this controversy to rest. In fact, it raises even more questions about what White House officials were involved in in this entire operation.
So joining me now with how all of this could impact the Pennsylvania Senate race is the governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell.
Welcome back to "Hannity."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GOV. ED RENDELL, D-PA.: Good evening, Sean.
HANNITY: All right, Governor, you don't — you said from the beginning they should come clean on this bribe-gate. We just had news that broke. We just broke, this guy Andrew Romanoff, same thing.
When you hear their story and you read their memo and you compare it to Sestak there's a conflict here. The questions that you want answered, I would assume, are not answered at this point.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}RENDELL: Well, look, I think there's enough questions that have been raised that the White House should respond to this. But let me start out by saying Mayor Giuliani got it all wrong.
He talked about secretary of the Navy. Ray Mabus, the former governor of Mississippi, was confirmed as secretary of the Navy in May of last year so that's out. That never happened. Secondly —
HANNITY: I don't buy the timeline on that because we're talking about February of 2009 before he was confirmed. Isn't that true?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}RENDELL: I'm sorry, he was nominated. He was nominated. Then they're not going to pull a nomination —
HANNITY: In March.
RENDELL: Right, in March.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HANNITY: All right. But he was first approached —
(CROSSTALK)
RENDELL: — even — way before Arlen Specter dropped out of race.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HANNITY: All right. But here's —
RENDELL: I mean, you know, before Arlen Specter shifted parties.
HANNITY: But they're saying in the memo that there were multiple efforts to reach out to him. Sestak says only one.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}RENDELL: Again —
HANNITY: They said June and July.
RENDELL: We need to —
HANNITY: Go ahead.
RENDELL: Sean, we need to explain that. But let me tell you this. And I know you're not going to like to hear this, but this stuff has been going on in administrations in Washington, Harrisburg, Albany, Sacramento. All the time.
HANNITY: OK. But wait a minute.
RENDELL: Let me give you an example.
HANNITY: But wait — but this is against the law. I mean David Axelrod argues the terms that he used here. It would be a serious breach of law. What they're saying here is U.S. Code, you cannot offer anything of value for a political act.
RENDELL: But, Sean —
HANNITY: So if it's against the law, why shouldn't we pursue — why do we pass laws if we are not going to enforce them?
RENDELL: You've heard Michael Mukasey, the last attorney general under President Bush, saying it isn't against the law and he's a fairly strong conservative appointed by President Bush.
Look, this is exactly what's wrong with Washington. I agree with you that there ought to be transparency and we ought to do a better job explaining this. But the people of Pennsylvania don't want investigations. They don't want the government tied up.
Sestak didn't do anything wrong. He turned it down, whatever they offered he turned it down. He's the hero in this whole scenario. That's number one. Number two, the people in Pennsylvania want to hear it from Sestak —
HANNITY: Wait a minute. If Sestak is a hero why doesn't Sestak tell us his — what did they offer him? He originally said it was a position of value. The White House —
RENDELL: Well —
HANNITY: Originally denied —
RENDELL: Sestak did say —
HANNITY: Well, the White House — look, I know you know this guy Larry Kane. He told Larry Kane in his first interview. Larry Kane called the White House, the White House said they didn't offer him anything. So were they telling the truth then? Are they telling the truth now? Is this — what's the difference between this and Rod Blagojevich?
RENDELL: Look, we're parsing words. But again, you've got Michael Mukasey, the Bush attorney general, saying no crime here.
HANNITY: That's one person.
RENDELL: This happens all the time. This happens all the time. Let me just give you a concrete example, because I know about this. Number one, Rahm Emanuel and I had discussions about this. We very much wanted to persuade Congressman Sestak to stay in the House and run for his seat because he would have won his seat easily and now that's a seat that's up for grabs.
So I know the administration did not want to offer him a job that would meant that he could — would had to leave Congress. That's number one. And number two, I — when Rick Santorum was running for reelection in 2006 I got call from Chuck Schumer. He said Bob Casey is our strongest candidate. That's what our polls show. There are two other Democrats, Casey won't run if he has a primary —
HANNITY: I got to run.
RENDELL: — can you talk to them?
HANNITY: But let — I'm not trying to —
RENDELL: I talked to one of them. I talked to one of them, Joe Hoefel. I said, "Joe, you want to serve the public. I will help you if you withdraw."
HANNITY: We got to go. Last question. Would you support a private — a special prosecutor or the FBI investigating?
RENDELL: No. We have too many special prosecutors. The people don't care. They want us to concentrate on the real issues that are confronting Pennsylvania, period. It's what's wrong in Washington.
HANNITY: All right, that's what Bill Clinton said. I've got to go back to focusing on the real issues. I — I think they've been less than forthcoming.
RENDELL: It's what's wrong with Washington, D.C., Sean. It's what's wrong with Washington. You guys not in Washington just don't get it.
HANNITY: We've got to enforce the law. Why do we pass laws?
We've got to run.
RENDELL: Because you've got people saying — you understand it's what's wrong with Washington today.
— Watch "Hannity" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!
Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, Inc. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.