Republicans returning from their week-long recess are trying to turn up the heat on the Obama administration over efforts by White House operatives to discuss the possibility of  jobs with two Democratic primary candidates if they dropped out of their races.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement on Friday that he wanted hearings to investigate the issue.

“I am concerned that the Obama administration has engaged in a habit of attempting to manipulate the democratic election process to benefit the Democratic Party. Such actions are certainly unethical and may very well be criminal,” Smith said.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has previously said the Justice Department should appoint a special prosecutor to look into the allegations.

The swirl of accusations involving the White House, including back-room deal-making and promises of  jobs in exchange for political favors, has led some Republicans to suspect a juicy potential scandal. But as the facts are known, so far anyway, not many lawyers, not even Republican stalwarts, think anybody broke the law.

Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush, told Politico that the president can fill advisory positions in whatever method he wishes, including to “reward political loyalty.” His remarks followed those of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who has said that finding criminality was “really a stretch.”

Bradbury offered a fuller legal analysis. ”Under the Constitution,” he said, “ it’s the president’s prerogative to fill advisory positions in the White House and to decide who will occupy senior policy offices across the administration,” said Bradbury, who suggested that Congress should not attempt to criminalize the appointment process.

“The president may make those appointment decisions for any reason he deems appropriate,” Bradbury said, “ including to reward political loyalty, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if Congress tried to prohibit the president, or anyone acting on his behalf, from offering appointments in particular circumstances.”

“For that reason,” Bradbury continued, “any statute that purports to criminalize an offer of appointment must be construed, if at all possible, not to interfere with the president’s constitutional authority, and if the statute cannot be read to avoid that result, there’s a strong argument it would be unconstitutional as so applied.”

Justice Department officials have expressed no interest in opening an inquiry. The White House has defended its actions. In one case, according to a report issued last week by White House counsel Robert Bauer, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to raise the possibility of an unpaid presidential appointment to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who was challenging and defeated Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

This week another episode emerged. Colorado senatorial candidate Andrew Romanoff said that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina brought up three positions that he might be interested in as an alternative to running against the administration’s preferred candidate, incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

Peter Zeidenberg, a former Justice Department prosecutor who worked in the Public Integrity Section and now works at DLA Piper, had earlier said that the Sestak offer wasn’t a crime.

“It sounds like political horsetrading and I don’t think a prosecutor would have any interest in prosecuting such a case. It doesn’t sound to me anything like a bribe,” Zeidenberg said. “You’d be laughed out of the courtroom.”

Controversy is swirling around two Bush-era officials in an obscure Justice Department office, The Washington Post reported today.

The U.S. Parole Commission — which handles people convicted under D.C. law and under the old federal system — is under scrutiny for  then-Commissioner Deborah Spagnoli’s decision to contact then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about an inmate set to be released, and the apparent efforts of outgoing Chairman Edward F. Reilly Jr. to secure funds to improve a Missouri highway through his hometown.

Spagnoli, who resigned in 2007, lobbied Justice Department members to intercede in the case of Ver0nza Bowers Jr., who was convicted in the 1973 murder of a San Francisco park ranger, The Post said. Bowers has maintained his innocence, and in 2005, he was set to be released.

The then-commissioner, who has called Bowers “an unrepentant murderer,” tried to contact the infamous Office of Legal Counsel lawyer Steven G. Bradbury and Gonzales Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson about the case, The Post said.

In an unprecedented move, Gonzales asked the Parole Commission to “clarify” its “initial decision,” according to The Post. The commission then voted to keep Bowers behind bars, The Post said. Following the vote, she wrote an e-mail to a DOJ official that simply said: “victory,” according to The Post.

“I never campaigned to deny parole to Veronza Bowers,” she said in a statement to The Post. “I do not believe there was any impropriety in reviewing the case and the applicable law and providing a summary to the Attorney General who has a statutory right to appeal certain parole commission decisions.”

As for Reilly, he is being investigated by the inspector general’s office for his repeated attempts to have government officials improve Missouri Highway 92, which runs through his hometown of Leavenworth, Kan. This came to light through the work of Spagnoli’s husband, D.C. Assistant U.S. Attorney, William Woodruff, to made letters surrounding the lobbying effort public.

“I never really thought about it until you brought it to my attention,” Reilly told The Post. “I’m very sorry it occurred.”

Spagnoli maintained to The Post that she’s not involved with what her husband is doing, but has complained about Reilly turning the commission into his “personal little fiefdom,” according to The Post.

And another twist: there was someone who visited Reilly’s office on a Sunday in 2006 and copied 68 pages of his personal papers, The Post said. Of the four people who visited the office that day, one was Spagnoli. She declined to comment to The Post on her weekend visit.