Ill. Gov. arrested in Obama successor probe

[ChumpDumper]

It's irrational to believe Obama is potentially involved in some illegality...?

What illegality?

[Yonivore]

That's not true. There are plenty of liberals on this board and elsewhere who don't believe everything that's "said bad about him". Case in point: The Carlyle Group. People love to smear Bush with contacts like said Carlyle Group or the Bin Ladens; and using those contacts they try to make the case that Iraq and 9/11 were conspiratorially organized by Bush & Co in a joint venture with the Saudi's and Bin Ladens. And equally true, as you well know, there are plenty of liberals who don't buy into said conspiracies.

Carlyle group and the bin Laden crap is whacka-do nonsense...on par with Mena and Vince Foster.

We're not talking conspiracies, we're talking real people with whom Obama spent a considerable amount of time and are now being brought to justice for crimes committed during the time Obama was spending said time with them and for crimes that would -- by the nature of their association with Obama -- lead one to reasonably believe Obama was aware of their crimes.

It's not like Rezko and Blogojevich were Obama's minister and next door neighbor -- they were political associates committing political crimes.

It's reasonable to conclude Obama knew they were crooks.

Now, regarding Bush's conduct in office, I believe a lot, because I witnessed it. Bush's scandals weren't related to all the shady people who surround him and his family (far more than Obama) but rather, the criminal and negligent conduct of his administration, as pertaining to matters officially within the nation and public's interest. Katrina, Walter Reed, Libby/Plame, NSA wiretapping. Cheney's Energy Task Force, suppression of federal scientific reporting, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, expansion of the executive branch, Iraq intelligence and Cheney running amok with the CIA, efforts to prevent the 9/11 commission, etc, etc, etc, and on and on and on. None of that has to do with Bush's political connections- it all has to do with shady, manipulative s baggery and crime. It's substantive- something these random and vague allegations about Obama are anything but.

Not one crime in the list. You mention a bunch of stuff over which reasonable people disagree and over which zealots, such as you, refuse to se the other side; but, for which this administration has never been accused by a court of competent jurisdiction of violating a law.

Katrina: At worst, federal mismanagement...but, Democrat Louisiana politicians can claim alot of the blame for the catastrophe that occurred after Katrina as well as the diversion of COE funds that were intended to upgrade the levees before the storm.

Abu Ghraib: Wrongdoers tried and convicted...General, in charge, relieved of command.

Halliburton: What crime? What scandal orchestrated by the administration?

Expansion of Executive Branch: What crime? What scandal?

Iraq intelligence: What crime?

Cheney running amok with CIA: What crime?

Efforts to prevent the 911 Commission: What crime?

Seriously, what laws were broken? You disagree with how this administration approached certain cir stance and, certainly, this administration failed to respond properly to some events but, what crimes were committed in any of the things you listed...not to mention all the etc's... you threw in.

[Wild Cobra]

That's not true. There are plenty of liberals on this board and elsewhere who don't believe everything that's "said bad about him". Case in point: The Carlyle Group. People love to smear Bush with contacts like said Carlyle Group or the Bin Ladens; and using those contacts they try to make the case that Iraq and 9/11 were conspiratorially organized by Bush & Co in a joint venture with the Saudi's and Bin Ladens. And equally true, as you well know, there are plenty of liberals who don't buy into said conspiracies.

Only because after the allegations, it was proven that more democrats have involvement with these people.

Now, regarding Bush's conduct in office, I believe a lot, because I witnessed it. Bush's scandals weren't related to all the shady people who surround him and his family (far more than Obama) but rather, the criminal and negligent conduct of his administration, as pertaining to matters officially within the nation and public's interest.

Propaganda you mean?

Katrina,

Mostly a locally cause problem, and bugs were not worked with the restructuring. Why didn't Mississippi have the same problems?

Walter Reed,

One locations with problems. Not caused by our president. Not how the standard care was. Most of Walter Reed does a very fine job.

Libby/Plame,

Yep, a division of the CIA running amok and caught. The real leak never prosecuted. Because he was a liberal in the SOS office.

NSA wiretapping.

Nothing wrong here. Every president did such things, they simply included more modern communications in the process.

Cheney's Energy Task Force,

I don't recall that one. New thread please, or old one?

suppression of federal scientific reporting,

This too. What are you blabbering about.

Abu Ghraib,

You're joking. You blame the antics of a few soldiers on him? Please... Lay off the Kool-Aid.

Halliburton,

On contract since the Clinton administration.

expansion of the executive branch,

I'll agree here. That is never good.

Iraq intelligence and Cheney running amok with the CIA,

efforts to prevent the 9/11 commission,

Again, you joking?

etc, etc, etc, and on and on and on. None of that has to do with Bush's political connections- it all has to do with shady, manipulative s baggery and crime. It's substantive- something these random and vague allegations about Obama are anything but.

I guess you are one who believe every politician micromanages, and has his hands in everything below him. Good leaders know that is a poor way to be an executive.

Now I task you to take this same line of reasoning you have for bad things that occur, and apply them equally to president Obama during his term(s) in office. Blame him for all that occurs on his watch equally.

[Yonivore]

I must have skipped the line about Plame, Cheney energy, yadda yadda...but, you picked it up so, I won't repeat.

No one in this administration has been tried for a crime that would lead an objective person to believe this President was culpable in a crime of any kind. The closest you get is Libby and he was convicted of lying for who knows what reason...after all, the actual leaker was -- as WC said -- in the State Department.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

How much indignation did Yoni have with the whole scooter libby/valerie plame controversy again?

He must have been very upset based on his denunciation of Obama on far shakier and more abstract ground in this Blago controversy.

[balli]

Now I task you to take this same line of reasoning you have for bad things that occur, and apply them equally to president Obama during his term(s) in office. Blame him for all that occurs on his watch equally.

Seriously, I will, but since Obama isn't empowering bloodsucking neo-con s like Cheney and /or as Bill Maher has humorously said, assigning "ex dildo salesman college-roommates" to important bureaucratic posts, I don't think we'll have to worry about such grossly negligent and manipulative, if not entirely criminally scandalous, conduct.

[Yonivore]

Seriously, I will, but since Obama isn't empowering bloodsucking neo-con s like Cheney and /or as Bill Maher has humorously said, assigning "ex dildo salesman college-roommates" to important bureaucratic posts, I don't think we'll have to worry about such grossly negligent and manipulative, if not entirely criminally scandalous, conduct.

Well, my disagreement with your (and Maher's) characterization of Vice President Cheney aside, I'd say Hillary Clinton fits the bloodsucking s description rather nicely. Not only that, she's unqualified. What diplomatic experience does she have?

[balli]

Well, my disagreement with your (and Maher's) characterization of Vice President Cheney aside, I'd say Hillary Clinton fits the bloodsucking s description rather nicely. Not only that, she's unqualified. What diplomatic experience does she have?

You really needed to read that Open Letter to Conservatives that jochhejaam posted the other day. Really.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...5&postcount=16

Pertaining to Hillary:

As for the Hillary thing, get real. Obama was elected in large part by a leftist crusade for hope and "change." Now, as president-elect, he has just formed the most conservative Democratic foreign policy team since John F. Kennedy, one well to the right of Bill Clinton. Where is your gra ude for that? What is more relevant in his Hillary Clinton pick: her prickly past or the fact that, except for Joe Lieberman, she is the Democrat most identified with support for the Iraq War?

Perhaps I should repeat that. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat MOST IDENTIFIED WITH REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN BY FORCE. She lost a presidency over it. So, whatever low opinion you may have about Hillary, on foreign policy she is the very best choice for that position that conservatives could expect to get. Even better, because the ONLY issue that really divided Hillary and Obama was the Iraq War. This is President Obama's way of saying, "Okay, now that I'm in office, I'm going to put my anti-war commitments aside and put the defense of the country first. And in case you didn't get that, I'm going to keep George Bush's Secretary of Defense in place, and I'm going to appoint a conservative Marine general as my National Security Advisor."

Maybe some conservatives out there have forgotten, but Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, was an anti-Vietnam activist. So were his two National Security Advisers, Tony Lake and Sandy Berger. In fact, they met Clinton in the anti-war movement. Conservatives should be cheering right now, not chasing red herrings.

So yeah, keep ing Yoni, because it really just makes me want to say you. And I like saying " you" to people. Ya ungrateful asshole.

[Yonivore]

You really needed to read that Open Letter to Conservatives that jochhejaam posted the other day. Really.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...5&postcount=16

Pertaining to Hillary:

Again, her diplomatic credentials? And, that she knew Saddam Hussein for what he was doesn't change the fact she's a bloodsucking s .

[Yonivore]

I watched the Jesse Jackson interview and I think this is a bit odd:

"Politics is a contact sport. Only those on the sidelines have clean uniforms,"

I wonder if when Jackson said, "It Wasn't Me," he was thinking of this song by Shaggy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4PGt9oOto

[Yonivore]

From the Lindgren timeline at Volokh, and as revealed in the complaint and press reports:

1. On the weekend of Nov. 8-9, Obama lets it be known that his choice for Senate is Valerie Jarrett. Aides tell WLS-TV in Chicago and CNN, which announces Obama’s choice on Sunday. Nov. 9.

2. On Monday, Nov. 10, Blagojevich holds an incredible 2-hour conference call with multiple consultants: “ROD BLAGOJEVICH, his wife, JOHN HARRIS, Governor General Counsel, and various Washington-D.C. based advisors, including Advisor B,” discussing his corrupt schemes. He follows this with two calls with Advisor A.

3. That very night, Monday, Nov. 10, at 7:56pm, CNN reported:

Two Democratic sources close to President-elect Barack Obama tell CNN that top adviser Valerie Jarrett will not be appointed to replace him in the U.S. Senate.

"While he (Obama) thinks she would be a good senator, he wants her in the White House," one top Obama advisor told CNN Monday.

Over the weekend, Democratic sources had told CNN as well as Chicago television station WLS-TV that Jarrett was Obama's choice to fill his Senate seat.

So what happened? The likeliest scenario is that one of the many participants in Blagojevich’s Monday phone calls either floated his plans to the Obama transition team to assess their response or tipped off the Obama camp about the reckless ideas that Blagojevich had planned.

In any event, within hours of Blagojevich substantially expanding his circle of confidants, the Obama camp withdrew Jarrett’s name from consideration and attributed that withdrawal to the President's wanting Jarrett in the White House. And the Obama staffers went out of their way to depict this as Obama's choice, rather than Jarrett's, which would have been more common. The report claims Obama's involvement in the decision and suggests a direct effort to undercut the idea that Obama was pressuring Blagojevich to appoint Jarrett.

Seriously, is it unreasonable to believe that Obama rescinded the Jarrett endorsement because of information that came out of the 2 hour conference call Blogojevich held? And, if so, wouldn't that mean Obama (or his team) were aware of the "pay for play" efforts?

[Yonivore]

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this le or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[Yonivore]

After Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, etc. a reporter finally sets down the Kool-Aid for a few minutes anyway.
John Kass of The Chicago Tribune comes clean:

"Obama is a creature of Chicago Politics. The machine runs Chicago... There seems to be a willful attempt by some outside Chicago to sort of not consider that Obama is a Chicago political guy."

Some, but not everyone...the article.

The video:


No wonder Obama's good friend Rod Blagojevich wanted to clean house at the Chicago Tribune.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, is it unreasonable to believe that Obama rescinded the Jarrett endorsement because of information that came out of the 2 hour conference call Blogojevich held? And, if so, wouldn't that mean Obama (or his team) were aware of the "pay for play" efforts?

Seriously, after two days, tell us what you, in fact, believe.

[Yonivore]

Earlier, the SpunkDumpster and doobs forwarded three possible scenarios on how the whole Blogojevich selling Obama’s Senate seat scandal went down.

Spunky proffered the idea that someone in Obama’s camp was in on the sting all along and, further, this someone advised Obama to hold off on negotiating with Blogojevich so the investigation could produce results without, in any way, involving Obama.

Well, this doesn’t make sense on a whole lot of levels; not the least of which is information in the complaint that indicates the president-elect had at least one advisor that was in contact with the Blogojevich camp after the wiretaps were established and, further, that the timeline compiled at Volokh clearly demonstrates a change in Obama’s strategy immediately after the two hour conference call on which it is believed his advisors were privy or, possibly, participants.

Doobs forwards two more scenarios both of which infer Obama’s camp knew of the illegality and failed to report it but, had no other part in the crime. The second of his scenarios is less believable than the first but, generally, they’re the same.

Let me offer two more:

#1: Obama promised candidate 1 he would lobby for her appointment but, in reality, had already (in Chicago-style politics) sold his allegiance to another candidate. Therefore, he has to sabotage the deal for getting #1 appointed and steer Blogojevich to his preferred candidate. Refusing to “pay for play” on Candidate #1 would certainly do that with an idiot like Blogojevich – we all know how much it pissed him off. After the 2 hour conference call, Obama calls Candidate #1 and says – “Gee, I’m sorry, it doesn’t look like I’m going to be able to get you in the seat; would you come work for me at the White House instead?” All along, Obama could have been working another deal on another candidate through other proxies who intentionally kept him insulated from any wrongdoing (I’m thinking of the portion of the complaint where the Advisor B said he preferred one arrangement over the other because the president-elect would have fewer fingerprints on it). This we may never know because Blogojevich got busted and everything evaporated…except the evidence already collected. And, it will take time to sift through that, connect the dots, and draw conclusions.

#2: Hillary Clinton is behind it all and is laughing her ass off; hoping that something happens before the 18th that will cause Obama to have to step down or so taint his image it gives her an opportunity to lobby the Electoral College to switch their votes (they’re not legally or cons utionally bound to vote for Obama on the 18th). I know, far-fetched but, it would explain the timing – after the election to get a Democratic president-elect but before the Electoral College could consummate the deal. I question the timing.

There you have it.

[Yonivore]

I just heard something else that struck me.

This is the first time in recent memory Democrats have not circled the wagons and supported a beleaguered fellow Democrat. From William “Cold Cash” Jefferson to Rangel to Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi and on and on and on. Name a recent scandal in which Democrats have – within a day, as has happened here – called for the Democrat to resign.

Combine that with the Democrat’s rush to distance Obama from Blogojevich – his long association with the Governor all but being ignored – and Rahm Emmanuel’s sudden muteness; and, you have something fishy (no Pelosi reference intended) going on.

It’s obvious to most objective observers, Democrats want this to go away as quickly as possible and then, they want all digging into the matter to cease immediately. Thank you, please.

[ChumpDumper]

Earlier, the SpunkDumpster and doobs forwarded three possible scenarios on how the whole Blogojevich selling Obama’s Senate seat scandal went down.

Spunky proffered the idea that someone in Obama’s camp was in on the sting all along and, further, this someone advised Obama to hold off on negotiating with Blogojevich so the investigation could produce results without, in any way, involving Obama.

There is no negotiating with Blagojevich. Sure you want there to be negotiating.

Well, this doesn’t make sense on a whole lot of levels; not the least of which is information in the complaint that indicates the president-elect had at least one advisor that was in contact with the Blogojevich camp after the wiretaps were established and, further, that the timeline compiled at Volokh clearly demonstrates a change in Obama’s strategy immediately after the two hour conference call on which it is believed his advisors were privy or, possibly, participants.

Makes perfect sense if that is when the incriminating statements were recorded. Again, you have no common sense and are stupid, so no one expects you to come up with anything remotely plausible.

#1: Obama promised candidate 1 he would lobby for her appointment but, in reality, had already (in Chicago-style politics) sold his allegiance to another candidate.

This premise is an immediate fail. Why would he need to care if he changed his mind? He's the ing president-elect who just beat the living out of the Republicans. Everyone is sucking his now.

#2: Hillary Clinton

Right, she would just kill everyone like she killed Obama to become president.

There you have it.

Indeed.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

..........and Rahm Emmanuel’s sudden muteness;

very sudden muteness. i read that he's on the tapes. now i'm trying recall what obama said yesterday. "no one on my team has had any direct contact with blagojevich" or something to that affect. change is one the way, indeed.

also, i wonder where they have joe "stand up" biden locked up. letterman can start his new segment now. oh all of this is comedy. comedy, i say.

[ChumpDumper]

I just heard something else that struck me.

This is the first time in recent memory Democrats have not circled the wagons and supported a beleaguered fellow Democrat. From William “Cold Cash” Jefferson to Rangel to Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi and on and on and on. Name a recent scandal in which Democrats have – within a day, as has happened here – called for the Democrat to resign.

So?

Combine that with the Democrat’s rush to distance Obama from Blogojevich – his long association with the Governor all but being ignored – and Rahm Emmanuel’s sudden muteness; and, you have something fishy (no Pelosi reference intended) going on.

Yeah. You have your confirmation bias. Were you not masturbating nonstop for the last two days at the thought of Obama's being involved, you would know that Blogajevich has been a pariah for the last couple of years and Obama and the other Democrats have been distancing themselves from him that entire time.

It’s obvious to most objective observers, Democrats want this to go away as quickly as possible and then, they want all digging into the matter to cease immediately. Thank you, please.

at your using the word objective.

[ChumpDumper]

very sudden muteness. i read that he's on the tapes. now i'm trying recall what obama said yesterday. "no one on my team has had any direct contact with blagojevich" or something to that affect. change is one the way, indeed.

Fox News said Emanuel was the one who blew the whistle.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Fox News said Emanuel was the one who blew the whistle.

now it's fox news and not faux news. what a tool.

[ChumpDumper]

now it's fox news and not faux news. what a tool.

I never called it that. Are you saying they are unreliable in this instance?

[Anti.Hero]

[Yonivore]

Video report.

Some in here and on the left are spinning that Rahm Emanuel heroically calling Patrick Fitzgerald to blow the whistle on Blago's pay-for-play grasping.

If that's so, why is Emanuel hiding behind his kids to avoid answering questions?

Gag order requested by Fitzgerald? I don't think so. If that were the case, one would imagine that Fitzgerald would have given him the go-ahead to deliver a brief statement noting that he'd cooperated with the prosecutor but was now requested to remain silent about it, this being an active investigation and all.

Instead Emanuel is dodging questions like he has something to hide. If Emanuel were really the White Knight dime-dropper the earlier spin claimed he was, why would the prosecutor continue letting him twist in the wind looking all guilty 'n ?

A middle possibility is that Team Obama ultimately decided to drop dime or at least refuse Blago's demands, but earlier explored the notion of playing ball... and if that's the case, it would explain why they don't want to answer any questions -- answering one leads to another, and another, until finally we get to the questions that make them look very bad.

The Tribune reports that businessmen planned a big fundraiser for Blago late in the campaign.

As Gov. Rod Blagojevich was trying to pick Illinois’ next U.S. senator, businessmen with ties to both the governor and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the job, the Tribune has learned.
...
Two businessmen who attended the meeting and spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said that Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi privately told many of the more than two dozen attendees the fundraising effort was aimed at supporting Jackson’s bid for the Senate.
...
That meeting led to a Blagojevich fundraiser Saturday in Elmhurst, co-sponsored by Nayak and attended by Jesse Jackson Jr.’s brother, Jonathan, as well as Blagojevich, according to several people who were there. Nayak and Jonathan Jackson go back years and the two even went into business together years ago as part of a land purchase on the South Side.

The crime of conspiracy requires an agreement to participate in a crime plus an overt step in furtherance of that conspiracy -- just yapping about doing a crime isn't enough. But actually going through with the fundraiser corruptly agreed upon? Conspiracy.

Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s brother, Jonathan, attended. Are we to believe that none of this was worked out with JJJr? Or Jesse Jackson Sr. for that matter?

I'm a little baffled how it can be that this much is known about the Jackson Family's involvement in the conspiracy and yet not a one of them has apparently received a letter putting them on notice that they're targets of an investigation. Is Fitzgerald afraid of the political fall-out in going after the Jackson mob? Apparently so.

Why Is the AG Asking the Illinois Supreme Court to Strip Blago of His Powers? Impeachment is the job of the legislature, not the courts.

Is it a speed thing? I doubt it. An impeachment can happen quickly, if so desired.

To toss out a possibility -- the legislature would prefer having someone else do this on their behalf, because too many of them fear what secrets Blago might let leak about them in retaliation. If it's just the AG and the Supreme Court -- hey, Blago, you know we were really on your side all along... Please don't mention the thing with the guy at the place. You know what I'm talkin' about.

John Kass: Blago isn't crazy. He's just a standard machine politician. This is the Chicago Way. Obama's Chicago folks.

Kass notes that everyone from Daley to Obama is talking quietly about Blago because they don't want to piss him off -- and get him talking about their own corruption.

[Yonivore]

A Little Blago for Everyone

My favorite paragraph:

There’s the enormous I-should-have-had-a-V8! moment as the mainstream press collectively thwacks itself in the forehead, realizing it blew it again. The New York Times — which, according to Wall Street analysts, is weeks from holding editorial-board meetings in a refrigerator box — created the journalistic equivalent of CSI-Wasilla to study every follicle and fiber in Sarah Palin’s background, all the while treating Obama’s Chicago like one of those fairy-tale lands depicted in posters that adorn little girls’ bedroom walls. See there, Suzie? That’s a Pegasus. That’s a pink unicorn. And that’s a beautiful sunflower giving birth to a fully grown Barack Obama, the greatest president ever and the only man in history to be able to pick up manure from the clean end.

Indeed...