Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Redacted sections of Obama subpoena revealed

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,517
    Thanks
    0

    Redacted sections of Obama subpoena revealed

    Apparently hope and change stinks of corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by NBC Chicago
    Link

    Former governor Rod Blagojevich's defense team asked Thursday to issue a trial subpoena to the President of the United States of America.

    The motion, intended to be heavily redacted, was improperly edited -- the full document was easily viewable if the text is copied and pasted to another document.


    1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

    ...

    2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

    ...

    3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment

    ...

    4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates

    ...

    5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat

    ...

    6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

    ...



    .: Click Here to Read This Article :.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,517
    Thanks
    0

    Wow, not a word from a single liberal. You notice that the MSM doesn't want to touch this as well. Had it been ANYONE claiming to be a conservative, this would have been the non stop rallying cry that conservatives are evil and a national embarrassment. When it is a liberal on the receiving end, the crickets in the media rooms is all we hear.

  3. #3
    Conservatively Liberal NiteGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,044
    Thanks
    12452

    From
    Teardrop City
    Quote Originally Posted by BoogyMan View Post
    Wow, not a word from a single liberal. You notice that the MSM doesn't want to touch this as well. Had it been ANYONE claiming to be a conservative, this would have been the non stop rallying cry that conservatives are evil and a national embarrassment. When it is a liberal on the receiving end, the crickets in the media rooms is all we hear.
    Gee, Boogy, you gave people a whole ten minutes to respond, before declaring every liberal in existance a coward. Way to go!

    But since you asked....

    1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

    Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. …

    Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had.
    If said conversation took place, it would have been in or around 1999, when Obama was still a state legislator in Illinois. Now that being the case, yes, the state legislature did vote on and pass a measure in 1999 concerning casino gambling in the state, notably for additional gaming licenses in the Chicago area.

    However, there are two problems with Rezko's and Blago's story. First, Obama, in debates on the gaming legislation, argued against the bill's passage, which would seem to be a problem for Rezko if he thought Obama was going to help him get on the Gaming board, or help him get a gaming license. And when the issue came up for vote, Obama voted against it, as well.

    Second, the Obama campaign contributions, have been scrutinized, up down and sideways by every major paper in Chicago, the Illinois election commission, and the Federal election commission. Nothing was ever found to be improper, but Obama voluntarily gave back any donations related to Rezko, anyway, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

    2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

    Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B] ... [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.”
    Yeah? So what. Obama expressed a preferrence for one candidate over a couple of others, on the basis that he thought she'd be a good senator, and be able to get re-elected. What a shocker.

    No one is alledging that Obama offered anything in exchange for this recommendation.

    3. A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment

    Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator.
    I suppose the inferrence here is that said supporter offering the fundraising is the labor union official from point number 2, above.

    But again, so what? There's no indication at all that Obama told the union official to pay Blago for naming Jarrett to the senate. The testimony is that the supporter told Obama that he would reach out to Blago as someone who knew Blago, and would convey Obama's support for Jarrett. And since Jarrett withdrew her name from consideration just a week later, it would seem to be a moot point.

    4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates

    President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich.

    --snip--

    President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.”
    Damn, another shocker. Obama had several people on a short list to recommend to Blago, if his first recommendation somehow fell through.

    Let's see... Haven't we just been hearing about a short list of recommended people for the Supreme Court, and early on, a "short list" of candidates for various cabinet posts? What, you think there's only one possible person that the President might recommend to the Governor as being qualified for the position of senator, and able to win re-election?

    5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat

    President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator.

    [President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.
    Well Goddamn, I guess we should start impeachment procedings tomorrow. The affrontery of Emanuel suggesting to Obama possible names of candidates that might be a good fit for filling the senatorial seat. Even people who aren't (gasp!!!) "politicians".

    It's a conspiracy for sure!

    6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

    Christ, Boogy, your link can't even get the basics right. The allegation is not that Obama and Blago had a secret phone call, but that they had a secret, in person conversation. And Blago, as we are well aware by now, has said a multitude of things that have turned out not to be true, to say the least. Perhaps Blago and Obama did have a conversation of some sort. Perhaps they did not.

    In any case, the prosecutors did not, and have not indicted Obama with regard to the so-called substance of this conversation, something I would think would be a foregone conclusion, if there were anything illegal dicussed.

    Blago's rantings since his arrest, and during his speech right before the Illinois legislature tossed him on his ear, make the "we never went to the moon", "Bush was behind 9/11", and the "birther" conspiracy theorists sound positively sane by comparison. He's throwing anything and everything against the wall, hoping to cloud stuff up enough to give him some wiggle room. He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Miami during an August heat wave.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,517
    Thanks
    0

    Well NiteGuy, nobody called anyone a coward for starters.

    How about some objective sourced rebuttal to the article? I will gladly discuss opinion with you, but that will be what it is, our varying opinions.

    Cheers

  5. #5
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    29,683
    Thanks
    26

    From
    See you in a new existence!
    It appears there's a bit of salemanship in writing the titles of the six redacted points. Lying? Secret phone call. So if I call my wife and nobody knows about it, is that a "secret phone call" or just a normal phone call which no one knows about?

    Reading the text about "lying" there are a lot of wholes in that story which I'd like to see plugged before accusing anyone, regardless of political flavor, of lying.

    Most of the items listed, while potentially politically embarrassing, are both legal and, sad to say, politics as usual in these here United States.

  6. #6
    Conservatively Liberal NiteGuy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    17,044
    Thanks
    12452

    From
    Teardrop City
    Quote Originally Posted by BoogyMan View Post
    Well NiteGuy, nobody called anyone a coward for starters.
    Outright? No. But that's certainly what you implied when you said:
    Wow, not a word from a single liberal.
    Quote Originally Posted by BoogyMan
    How about some objective sourced rebuttal to the article?
    Sure thing. What about my rebuttal do you find "not objective"? The votes on Illinois gaming in 1999?
    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama enjoys poker and blackjack, and admires the way the gaming industry powers Nevada's economy.

    But in his home state, it's a different story. As a matter of principle, he repeatedly opposed expanding gambling in Illinois, saying it was bad for communities and not a good way to fund government.

    As recently as 2003, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, said he believed the "moral and social cost of gambling" was potentially "devastating" and that using gaming as a source of revenue or for economic development was "irresponsible."

    He didn't think Illinois legislators should accept political contributions from the gaming industry, and in 2004 and 2006 refused federal contributions from gaming companies.

    --snip--

    In a 2002 candidate survey from the anti-gambling Illinois Churches in Action, Obama said he was opposed to increasing the amount of gaming in existing casinos, slot machines at racetracks, video gaming at drinking establishments and additional riverboat casinos.

    "I think it's a bad idea," he told the Defender in February 2001, talking about a bill to add slot machines. "I am generally skeptical about the steady expansion of gambling in Illinois and the use of gaming as an economic development tool."

    Illinois has for decades had betting at horse racetracks and a lottery. But the gaming industry, as in casino operators, entered the state in 1991, when riverboat gambling was legalized.

    The state said there would be just 10 gambling boats and they would go to communities that could prove they needed a boost. Gambling would be allowed only while the boats were cruising; Cook County, which contains Chicago, and Lake Michigan were ruled out as locales.

    "If you look at who invested in the boats, it's clear people expected it (gambling) would evolve into something much more," said Kent Redfield, a political scientist at the University of Illinois in Springfield who studies Illinois politics. Many of the investors were big, Las Vegas-based gaming companies such as Harrah's and Mirage Resorts.

    "It was pretty dormant until the 1999 session," Redfield said.

    That's when the industry mounted a massive lobbying effort and legislators from both political parties cobbled together a bill -- stuffed with pork projects to get lawmakers on board -- that eliminated the cruising requirement and the ban on Cook County casinos.

    The bill passed. Obama (to whom Redfield acknowledges he is "favorably disposed" because they worked together on campaign-finance legislation) voted against it, saying at the time that the loosening of restrictions was a "race to the bottom" and that campaign contributions from gaming interests played a role.

    There are no limits on contributions in Illinois. Gaming gave legislators more than $1 million and the governor more than $400,000 in the run-up to the 1999 legislative battle, Redfield's research found.

    Obama refused money from gaming, telling National Public Radio, "It is very hard to separate yourself from the interests of the gaming industry if you're receiving money."
    PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS: Obama's gaming give, take - News - ReviewJournal.com

    Notice that second to the last paragraph? There were a whole lot of legislators in Illinois taking Gaming lobby money, including Gov. Blago. But not Obama. And I can't find it right now, but I think it was the Chicago Tribune that found Rezko talking to Blago, and Mayor Daly and a lot of other politicos around that time to get a favorable position for a gaming commission seat, in exchange for campaign donations. Hard to do that, though, if you're not taking those donations, and you're voting no on the bill.

    Anything else troubling you? I mean, what else is there really to rebut?

    It's a fact that Obama openly recommended Valerie Jarrett to Blago as a good replacement for him in the Senate. It was in the news. It's also a fact that a week after the elections, Jarrett withdrew her name from senate consideration, so that she could take a position inside the new White House administration.

    It's a fact that Obama recommended several other names to Blago he thought would make good senators. But again, so what? There's nothing illegal about that. There's nothing even improper about that, as long as there is no offer of payment for the appointment. And no one, not even Blago, is saying there was an offer.

    I have no idea if Emanuel suggested names to Obama to pass along to Blago or not, but it certainly seems reasonable. That's what President-Elects have a staff for - to do a lot of the legwork, before being presented with options. Hell, I'm not even President, and I have a staff that does stuff like this for me. So one of the persons Emanuel recommended wasn't a career politician. So what? What does that have to do with whether or not she was qualified to hold the post?

    Now, I don't know where you live, but I live in Illinois. We hear about all the crap from Blago day in and day out. It's a fact that the man blamed, smeared, threatened, or otherwise discredit anyone and everyone who has had anything negative to say about him, since his impeachment. Up to and including the US Attorney who currently has him under indictment. Not an opinion, a fact. What else is there to say, except that some of his theories for why he's being picked on are down-right loony tunes?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoogyMan
    I will gladly discuss opinion with you, but that will be what it is, our varying opinions.
    Of course.

Similar Threads

  1. Gay soldiers subpoena Obama
    By Granite in forum Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 1st July 2010, 08:21 PM
  2. Obama Care costs revealed!
    By justoneman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 16th September 2009, 08:57 AM
  3. Obama the Socialist revealed
    By Stinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 27th October 2008, 08:13 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed