Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

And there it is. We have even less than "few facts", we have NO facts, and yet the "attack dogs" on the right are already wading hip deep into this and proclaiming Obama to be guilty of SOMETHING. The OP was "attacked" because he made a ridiculous, outlandish claim with absolutely no proof to back it up. A genuine desire for truth is admirable, yet usually requires that conclusions come AFTER the facts are known.

Where does that leave the people who consistently insist the opposite? That Obama is guilty of nothing, and no investigation should take place? The spectrum is equally heavy on both sides, and when every allegation is written off as being part of a "smear campaign" without any substantial, meaningful investigation coming to fruition, it starts to get old.

From the facts we have right now, Obama IS guilty of nothing, and the dogged insistence to the contrary, in the absence of any facts, IS a smear campaign. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just something for people who's politics you like.

Asking for a fair, impartial investigation of the facts is a good thing...but the OP, as well as you and many other people, are taking the stance of assuming guilt for Obama right out of the gate.

Kinda like how the BDS crowd believed Cheney was guilty of outing Plame without any evidence either.

Yes, exactly like that...although while I don't remember jumping on that particular bandwagon, a lot of the same people jumping to conclusions here got their panties all in a bunch when it was done to their side.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
All the attack dogs from the last 8 years are on the defensive. This is going to be fun. :laugh:

Well, not ALL the attack dogs. I'm pretty sure you and a large part of the right-wing in this country spent the last several bazillion years attacking Democrats, liberals, whoever, pretty much non-stop over everything, and nothing. I'd say that you might start doing it MORE, but that doesn't really seem possible.

Thank you for proving my point.


Deflection gets old very fast.

Who's deflecting? You expressed delight over the chance to be a political attack dog for your own side, and the question I have is what the hell you were doing BEFORE.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

And there it is. We have even less than "few facts", we have NO facts, and yet the "attack dogs" on the right are already wading hip deep into this and proclaiming Obama to be guilty of SOMETHING. The OP was "attacked" because he made a ridiculous, outlandish claim with absolutely no proof to back it up. A genuine desire for truth is admirable, yet usually requires that conclusions come AFTER the facts are known.

Where does that leave the people who consistently insist the opposite? That Obama is guilty of nothing, and no investigation should take place? The spectrum is equally heavy on both sides, and when every allegation is written off as being part of a "smear campaign" without any substantial, meaningful investigation coming to fruition, it starts to get old.

From the facts we have right now, Obama IS guilty of nothing, and the dogged insistence to the contrary, in the absence of any facts, IS a smear campaign. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just something for people who's politics you like.

Asking for a fair, impartial investigation of the facts is a good thing...but the OP, as well as you and many other people, are taking the stance of assuming guilt for Obama right out of the gate.

What guilt have I claimed? My inclination is that he knows much more than is apparent, and that inclination stems from his behavior thus far in the many previous instances of shady associations and the non-ensuing investigations.

My outrage is directed at the fact that any time something like this happens, it is written off before anything can even become of it by people who for the last 8 years have assumed that every accusation of wrongdoing against the current administration is completely justified and accurate. Every past association with every company that anybody has been a part of, any business associate, you name it, Bush is guilty and needs to be impeached. That is what upsets me. The clear, evident double standard which exists here among many people who so proudly voice their disgust on a daily basis, and then vehemently deny that their own side could be anything but the immaculate conception of political parties.

It is attitudes like these, attitudes that are voiced very loudly every day on this board, on both sides, that allow the culture of political corruption to continue.

I hate to tell you this, but your gut instinct seems to be directly lifted from the right-wing noise machine. Unthinking defense of a candidate is bad, but so is unthinking attack. You think prosecutors stop doing their jobs when people on a message board say stuff? The investigation WILL happen, but for the moment there is NOTHING tying Obama to this mess besides the wishes of some right-wingers who want something to talk about. Defending him at this point isn't unreasonable, as so far he seems pretty innocent to me. If that changes, I'll be the first to sing a different tune...but right now trying to tie Obama to this at all seems like nothing more than partisan bullshit.

And you're right, it's complete BS when it happens the other way too...as is the double standard that exists around it. But let's face it, that applies equally to both sides...all the right-wingers going after Obama for nothing right here are the same folks who constantly bitch about "BDS" whenever any lefty wants to bring Bush up on charges for something.

The problem is that we can get so caught up in the larger issues that we miss the trees for the forest (yes, I know the saying is the other way around). What lefties say about Bush doesn't make a bit of difference in judging Obama here, all that matters are the FACTS. Double standards and an unwillingness to say bad things about your own party are bad enough, but if we can't even put aside politics when it comes to looking at the facts of a corruption investigation...well then we are completely screwed.

 

[daniel49]

all Illinois Politicians = corrupt
Just that Obama and Blago are from different branches of the same tree.

 

[OrByte]

I say if you all want to chase every single Obama conspiracy theory feel free. Its the same kind of partisan hackery that lead to the Democratic majority we see today.

For those repubs that can't fathom 8 years of Democratic control I say too bad!!

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I say if you all want to chase every single Obama conspiracy theory feel free. Its the same kind of partisan hackery that lead to the Democratic majority we see today.

For those repubs that can't fathom 8 years of Democratic control I say too bad!!

This.

The Contards continue to marginalize themselves.

And the sad thing about that scum Blago is if someone doesn't come forward with some type of 'smoking gun' at this point it may look to a jury like a whole lot of bluster with cursing.

I haven't read the affidavit but do they have a wiretap recording of an actual solicitation?

 

[sportage]

I think the next 4 years will be plenty full enough in bringing GW to justice.
But some will prefer to chase ghost of maybe-if vapor corruption against
democrats.

 

[Gunslinger08]

While I doubt Obama knew anything about Blago's attempt to sell the position, I think it's fairly clear that Axelrod is just covering his ass. He more than likely did not misspeak last month.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: OrByte
I say if you all want to chase every single Obama conspiracy theory feel free. Its the same kind of partisan hackery that lead to the Democratic majority we see today.

For those repubs that can't fathom 8 years of Democratic control I say too bad!!

This.

The Contards continue to marginalize themselves.

And the sad thing about that scum Blago is if someone doesn't come forward with some type of 'smoking gun' at this point it may look to a jury like a whole lot of bluster with cursing.

I haven't read the affidavit but do they have a wiretap recording of an actual solicitation?

It's pretty damning from what I read of it. He pretty much explicitly states about how he needs financial security for his family. Talks about how the Senate seat is not something given away for free. He discusses various ways to be compensated from getting his wife appointed to a board or himself to a a high position.

 

[NeoV]

I smell desperation again......

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
While I doubt Obama knew anything about Blago's attempt to sell the position, I think it's fairly clear that Axelrod is just covering his ass. He more than likely did not misspeak last month.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...I mean they would have a recording of the conversation if it was a call, and it sounds like they had his office bugged too (or somebody in his office was wearing a wire).

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
I posted this in the other thread, but this was my take:

It's pretty clear that Blago asked for some kind of compensation from the Obama camp for the Senate seat. They basically told him "you'll get our appreciation".

So - they were solicited to offer him a bribe. The question is did they negotiate? If so, that's a crime. Did they say "you'll get our appreciation" and not report it to the Feds? I dont know if that's a crime or not...I would guess it probably isn't. But would not reporting the crime be unethical? Clearly the answer is yes.

So I hope his camp reported this and cooperated with the Feds...

I find great humor to see the role reversal on Harvey (programming his new macros already I see), but I must say I didn't expect any scandals to hit at least until he was sworn in!

And what's the scandal? That Obama and Blago know each other and have political contact with each other? So what? Seems like all the Obama haters have at this point are a lot of questions and not much else.

All depends on what the Obama camps response was when asked to commit an illegal act.

Right, like I said, lots of questions, zero allegations or evidence of anything. Don't let that stop the witch hunt, I suppose.

You better call and complain to NPR, that right wing mouthpiece. I clearly heard them call it a "Scandal" today and bringing up the questions on did Obama talk to Rod (the retraction) and who in his camp was talking to Blago's team.

 

[OrByte]

Yahoo Article

But Obama wouldn't answer a question on whether he was aware of any conversations between the governor and his top aides, including incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It's an ongoing investigation," Obama said. "I think it would be inappropriate for me to ... remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know."

Listen, even I will admit that not only is it possible that Obama's team had conversations about his Senate replacement but it is also very likely. Think about it, this is an issue that impacts Obama's former Senate seat, including the work that Obama was a part of and any future work that may bridge the transition. it only makes sense that some level of conversation occurred between Obama's camp and the Ill Governor's office, political strategy doesn't end just because Obama was elected to be POTUS. Do any of you think Obama would just vacate a Senate seat and not have his own .02 on who should replace him?? But the invesigation needs to complete its analysis to determine what conversations were strategic in nature, and what conversations were illegal...because thats where we will see who is guilty of anything.

So when Obama says the above statement what that really means IMHO is that YES they did hold discussion(s) but they aren't going to tell you what they talked about. As the investigation continues we will find out what we need to know. It sounds like every move this Governor has made has been documented... including who he has been talking to and what they have been talking about.

Its waaaayy too early to be dragging Obama's name through the mud on this issue. But Im not surprised some of the wingbats have been tripping all over themselves to do so.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
http://www.foxnews.com/ - has it as the main story w/ pictures. The main story doesn't mention at all that Blagojevich is a Democrat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/ - a headline only, the top story instead is about teen pyro's, as if that's something new. Doesn't list his political party in the headline. CBS news does actually give his political affiliation in the 4th paragraph.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

http://www.cnn.com/ - has some headlines, but are somewhat vague. The article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...is.governor/index.html does mention he's a democrat at the very end of the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7773717.stm
the BBC US News site has it as their main story, and mentions he's a Democratic governor in about the middle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ - it's not the main story, which is about the economy instead, but rather a side story. They mention he's a democrat in the picture caption at the top and at the beginning of the story.

This is a pretty big scandal, and it's amazing that the media is so reluctant to tell people his political affiliation. Every time a republican so much as farts in church it's all over the headlines with a giant (R-ST) in the headline usually.

You are such a whiney douche, and so in Winnar111. Stirring up shit when there is nothig to stir.

Are either of you even aware that a major part of this crime is Blagovich trying to bribe Obama to give the seat to one of Obama's staff? In turn Blagovich wanted a cabinet appointment... Obama said No. That is called refusing a bribe, and is the right thing to do.

Give up with your unending slander already, thje election is over and you LOST!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Yahoo Article

But Obama wouldn't answer a question on whether he was aware of any conversations between the governor and his top aides, including incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "It's an ongoing investigation," Obama said. "I think it would be inappropriate for me to ... remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know."

Listen, even I will admit that not only is it possible that Obama's team had conversations about his Senate replacement but it is also very likely. Think about it, this is an issue that impacts Obama's former Senate seat, it only makes sense that some level of conversation occurred between Obama's camp and the Ill Governor's office, political strategy doesn't end just because Obama was elected to be POTUS. Do any of you think Obama would just vacate a Senate seat and not have his own .02 on who should replace him?? But the invesigation needs to complete its analysis to determine what conversations were strategic in nature, and what conversations were illegal...because thats where we will see who is guilty of anything.

Careful, saying things like this will get you lumped in with the right wingers and being called all kinds of nasty names, accused of running a smear campaign, etc. And it's not only likely, it's already documented in the affadavit.

So when Obama says the above statement what that really means IMHO is that YES they did hold discussion(s) but we aren't going to tell you what we talked about. As the investigation continues we will find out what we need to know. It sounds like every move this Governor has made has been documented... including who he has been talking to and what they have been talking about.

Its waaaayy too early to be dragging Obama's name through the mud on this issue. But Im not surprised some of the wingbats have been tripping all over themselves to do so.

I agree. Asking questions directly related to the affadavit or statements made by Obama and his team is reasonable. Saying "oh this is all part of illinois politics, Obama is corrupt too" is not. Stick to the facts. Same position I took on any Bush investigations (notably PlameGate).

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I agree. Asking questions directly related to the affadavit or statements made by Obama and his team is reasonable. Saying "oh this is all part of illinois politics, Obama is corrupt too" is not. Stick to the facts. Same position I took on any Bush investigations (notably PlameGate).

I think I have a problem with people that have already concluded that Obama and his camp are just as guilty as this Governor. When in fact, there is nothing released up until this point to implicate Obama and Co in these illegal dealings.

But I don't have a problem with Fitzgerald asking the questions.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: alchemize
I posted this in the other thread, but this was my take:

It's pretty clear that Blago asked for some kind of compensation from the Obama camp for the Senate seat. They basically told him "you'll get our appreciation".

So - they were solicited to offer him a bribe. The question is did they negotiate? If so, that's a crime. Did they say "you'll get our appreciation" and not report it to the Feds? I dont know if that's a crime or not...I would guess it probably isn't. But would not reporting the crime be unethical? Clearly the answer is yes.

So I hope his camp reported this and cooperated with the Feds...

I find great humor to see the role reversal on Harvey (programming his new macros already I see), but I must say I didn't expect any scandals to hit at least until he was sworn in!

And what's the scandal? That Obama and Blago know each other and have political contact with each other? So what? Seems like all the Obama haters have at this point are a lot of questions and not much else.

All depends on what the Obama camps response was when asked to commit an illegal act.

Right, like I said, lots of questions, zero allegations or evidence of anything. Don't let that stop the witch hunt, I suppose.

You better call and complain to NPR, that right wing mouthpiece. I clearly heard them call it a "Scandal" today and bringing up the questions on did Obama talk to Rod (the retraction) and who in his camp was talking to Blago's team.

I didn't object to you using the word "scandal," after all that's apt considering the giant turd Blago just laid. My beef was conflating the word with Obama, when there's no evidence or even allegations that he was involved whatsoever.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it's discovered that Obama's transition team had some level of contact with the Governor, considering it is Obama's seat, and one would assume they'd have some interest in who might be selected to fill it, to check in on the selection process, and to perhaps weigh in on the possible candidates.

None of that would be illegal of course, especially as it likely occurred prior to revelations of Blago's behavior surfaced.

But still, even that has been denied by the transition team and there are no allegations to the contrary.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I didn't object to you using the word "scandal," after all that's apt considering the giant turd Blago just laid. My beef was conflating the word with Obama, when there's no evidence or even allegations that he was involved whatsoever.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it's discovered that Obama's transition team had some level of contact with the Governor, considering it is Obama's seat, and one would assume they'd have some interest in who might be selected to fill it, to check in on the selection process, and to perhaps weigh in on the possible candidates.

None of that would be illegal of course, especially as it likely occurred prior to revelations of Blago's behavior surfaced.

But still, even that has been denied by the transition team and there are no allegations to the contrary.

It's already been confirmed by the affadavit that somebody in the Obama camp was in on one of the wiretaps...see 105 and 114 from my earlier post. And see OrBytes yahoo article. I think the (logical) speculation is that it was Rahm...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.../2008/1209081rod1.html

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here are a couple interesting things from the affadavit that would lead one to believe that Harris and other advisors were in discussions with the Obama camp:

99. Harris said that THEY (emphasis added) are considering what will help the "financial security" of the Blagojevich family and what will keep RB "politically viable".

101. This is where it becomes clear that somehow the obama camp has communicated back "no soup for you!"

102. Blago says "but if they feel like THEY (emphasis added) can do this and not fucking give me anything...then I'll fucking go [Senate Candidate 5].

105. Specifically references [President Elect Advisor], somebody clearly in the Obama camp.

114. Asks one of his advisors to "pitch the idea" to the [President Elect Advisor]


I think it's also clear that Rod and Obama weren't talking directly, at least based on this affadavit. There is mention of Advisor A, B and some consultants on Blagos side, but only that one reference directly to somebody working for Obama.

As an aside, I suggest everyone read the affadavit. It's incredibly clear how guilty Blago is, and what a fucking criminal thug he is.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see charges (or at least some really bad press) come out against some of the "bidders" - i.e. the candidates 1-5 who were being asked "what will you give me if I give you this appointment". Especially Candidate 5 who it appears was willing to fundraise $500K in exchange for the seat.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Wow, the governor of a state and the junior senator from the same state actually had conversations! That's enough to hang him right there. I'm amazed that Hillary Clinton wasn't arrested for prostitution because I'm sure she must have talked to Gov. Spitzer from time to time.

As someone said earlier, a conversation between the gov. and the senator about potential replacements is a perfectly reasonable conversation to have. If the conversation took place, Obama would have no reason to deny it. Why don't we just let the United States attorney do his job. If there's evidence that Obama asked for a cut of whatever Blagojevich was getting to give away his senate seat, then that's different. Until then, this is the equivalent of gossips babbling on about things they know nothing about.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I didn't object to you using the word "scandal," after all that's apt considering the giant turd Blago just laid. My beef was conflating the word with Obama, when there's no evidence or even allegations that he was involved whatsoever.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if it's discovered that Obama's transition team had some level of contact with the Governor, considering it is Obama's seat, and one would assume they'd have some interest in who might be selected to fill it, to check in on the selection process, and to perhaps weigh in on the possible candidates.

None of that would be illegal of course, especially as it likely occurred prior to revelations of Blago's behavior surfaced.

But still, even that has been denied by the transition team and there are no allegations to the contrary.

It's already been confirmed by the affadavit that somebody in the Obama camp was in on one of the wiretaps...see 105 and 114 from my earlier post. And see OrBytes yahoo article. I think the (logical) speculation is that it was Rahm...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.../2008/1209081rod1.html

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here are a couple interesting things from the affadavit that would lead one to believe that Harris and other advisors were in discussions with the Obama camp:

99. Harris said that THEY (emphasis added) are considering what will help the "financial security" of the Blagojevich family and what will keep RB "politically viable".

101. This is where it becomes clear that somehow the obama camp has communicated back "no soup for you!"

102. Blago says "but if they feel like THEY (emphasis added) can do this and not fucking give me anything...then I'll fucking go [Senate Candidate 5].

105. Specifically references [President Elect Advisor], somebody clearly in the Obama camp.

114. Asks one of his advisors to "pitch the idea" to the [President Elect Advisor]


I think it's also clear that Rod and Obama weren't talking directly, at least based on this affadavit. There is mention of Advisor A, B and some consultants on Blagos side, but only that one reference directly to somebody working for Obama.

As an aside, I suggest everyone read the affadavit. It's incredibly clear how guilty Blago is, and what a fucking criminal thug he is.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see charges (or at least some really bad press) come out against some of the "bidders" - i.e. the candidates 1-5 who were being asked "what will you give me if I give you this appointment". Especially Candidate 5 who it appears was willing to fundraise $500K in exchange for the seat.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Blago called Obama and/or his transition team and they told him to go pound sand. Which is pretty much what the affadavit suggests. Isn't that what we would want our president-elect to do? Tell this scumbag to go fuck himself?

In any event, picking up the phone and listening to this guy long enough to understand the sort of corrupt deal he was offering isn't illegal either.

 

[Genx87]

I think we should all wait to see what happens. It is speculated one of Obama's advisors was contacted. But what we dont know is if this advisor immediately contacted the authorities. It is very possible that people within Obama's transition team helped with the sting. I dont see Obama touching this with a 6 foot pole. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

But this illustrates the Chicago politics situation. Everybody mingles with everybody. Even if you are clean you can easily be painted dirty by the people you mingle with. And Chicago appears to have a shitload of dirt making it hard to look clean.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
http://www.foxnews.com/ - has it as the main story w/ pictures. The main story doesn't mention at all that Blagojevich is a Democrat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/ - a headline only, the top story instead is about teen pyro's, as if that's something new. Doesn't list his political party in the headline. CBS news does actually give his political affiliation in the 4th paragraph.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

http://www.cnn.com/ - has some headlines, but are somewhat vague. The article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...is.governor/index.html does mention he's a democrat at the very end of the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7773717.stm
the BBC US News site has it as their main story, and mentions he's a Democratic governor in about the middle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ - it's not the main story, which is about the economy instead, but rather a side story. They mention he's a democrat in the picture caption at the top and at the beginning of the story.

This is a pretty big scandal, and it's amazing that the media is so reluctant to tell people his political affiliation. Every time a republican so much as farts in church it's all over the headlines with a giant (R-ST) in the headline usually.

You guys have become so pathetic that now you're down to complaining about word placement within articles. DAMN THE LIBRUL MEDIA AND ITS LIBRUL PARAGRAPH PLACEMENT.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
http://www.foxnews.com/ - has it as the main story w/ pictures. The main story doesn't mention at all that Blagojevich is a Democrat.

http://www.cbsnews.com/ - a headline only, the top story instead is about teen pyro's, as if that's something new. Doesn't list his political party in the headline. CBS news does actually give his political affiliation in the 4th paragraph.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

http://www.cnn.com/ - has some headlines, but are somewhat vague. The article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...is.governor/index.html does mention he's a democrat at the very end of the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7773717.stm
the BBC US News site has it as their main story, and mentions he's a Democratic governor in about the middle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ - it's not the main story, which is about the economy instead, but rather a side story. They mention he's a democrat in the picture caption at the top and at the beginning of the story.

This is a pretty big scandal, and it's amazing that the media is so reluctant to tell people his political affiliation. Every time a republican so much as farts in church it's all over the headlines with a giant (R-ST) in the headline usually.

You guys have become so pathetic that now you're down to complaining about word placement within articles. DAMN THE LIBRUL MEDIA AND ITS LIBRUL PARAGRAPH PLACEMENT.

And the most-trusted news source, Fox News is in on it too! Oh noes! The horrors!11!11!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
This would be the post Harvey, where I post evidence and links - again nothing specific towards Obama but rather to someone who works for Obama. And again, there's no evidence any crime was committed - the question remains that were 'negotiations' going on, or was the Obama camp doing the right thing and reported this to the Feds and cooperated. As I've posted before, I hope they were doing the right thing.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your hissy fits.

How many thousands of people did Obama kill?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
This would be the post Harvey, where I post evidence and links - again nothing specific towards Obama but rather to someone who works for Obama. And again, there's no evidence any crime was committed - the question remains that were 'negotiations' going on, or was the Obama camp doing the right thing and reported this to the Feds and cooperated. As I've posted before, I hope they were doing the right thing.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your hissy fits.

How many thousands of people did Obama kill?

How useless is your life?