Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Eh, it's a single question that either ascertains if the obama camp was participating in the crime or not. But don't let that stop you from calling it a "witch hunt" :roll:

 

[alchemize]

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.

LOL. Bullshit. Perhaps I need to refer you to PlameGate? Or was that a smear campaign against Cheney and Rove?

 

[DealMonkey]

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.

What are you blathering on about? An investigation is already taking place as we speak. Blago has been investigated by the feds for going on for 5 years now, you don't think the FBI is looking at everyone and anything even tangentially related to this guy?

Blagojevich, 51, who has been the subject of a five-year federal probe, is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. The governor's chief of staff, John Harris, was also taken into custody on similar charges.

So yes, let's investigate, but it's interesting to note who seems a bit overly eager for some wrong-doing on Obama's part.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

LOL. Bullshit. Perhaps I need to refer you to PlameGate? Or was that a smear campaign against Cheney and Rove?

No, that was TREASON. :thumbsdown: :|

Want to go into it? Start yet another Plame thread. I'm locked and loaded with macros to document it. Come and get it.

 

[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.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

LOL. Bullshit. Perhaps I need to refer you to PlameGate? Or was that a smear campaign against Cheney and Rove?

No, that was TREASON. :thumbsdown: :|

Want to go into it? Start yet another Plame thread. I'm locked and loaded with macros to document it. Come and get it.

OK let's compare the two...

1) There were allegations that Plame was outed by someone in the Bush admin. For months everyone tramps around going "Rove! Cheney! Traitors and crooks all of them!". That's NOT a smear campaign.

2) There are allegations that Blago tried to get the Obama camp to bribe him for the senate seat. Some ask "how did the Obama camp respond?" Oh THAT'S a smear campaign!

Or are you disagreeing with Rainsford - this is NOT a smear campaign, and it's just the mere mention of Plame has your partisan heart all-a-pitter-patter?

edit: OH, and by the way, Rove and Cheney were never charged with a crime by the very same prosecutor. So by your logic, they are completely innocent as is Obama right? Your own words: "And who knows more about the charges than the lead prosecutor?"

 

[OCGuy]

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.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

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.

What are you blathering on about? An investigation is already taking place as we speak. Blago has been investigated by the feds for going on for 5 years now, you don't think the FBI is looking at everyone and anything even tangentially related to this guy?

I'm not complaining that no investigation is taking place. I'm glad that there is finally going to be a serious investigation involving his political associations which won't get swept under the rug. My complaint was about how it is so vocally objected to by so many people.

Blagojevich, 51, who has been the subject of a five-year federal probe, is charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. The governor's chief of staff, John Harris, was also taken into custody on similar charges.

So yes, let's investigate, but it's interesting to note who seems a bit overly eager for some wrong-doing on Obama's part.

[/quote]

That's exactly what I am talking about. Every time Obama is involved in anything which may merit investigation, it's not-so-subtly written off and anybody who asks a question is called-out as being an Obama-hating lunatic. I'm not eager to find wrong doing, I'm eager to find the truth, which so far has not been made very clear in any of Obama's personal matters.

 

[alchemize]

By the way, anyone have a link to the affadavit? Can't seem to find it yet.

edit: Duh, always try the smoking gun first
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a.../2008/1209081rod1.html

 

[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.

 

[jman19]

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

It goes both ways - a hack is a hack, doesn't matter who is in office.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

OK let's compare the two...

1) There were allegations that Plame was outed by someone in the Bush admin. For months everyone tramps around going "Rove! Cheney! Traitors and crooks all of them!". That's NOT a smear campaign.

2) There are allegations that Blago tried to get the Obama camp to bribe him for the senate seat. Some ask "how did the Obama camp respond?" Oh THAT'S a smear campaign!

1. Plame WAS outed by someone in the Bushwhacko administration. Cheney was documented to be fuming over Joseph Wilson's disclosure that, contrary to your Traitor In Chief's statements, there was no yellow cake uranium in Niger and was looking for ways to strike back at him. Libby worked directly under Cheney. Do you really think Libby would have done anything without Cheney's and Rove's knowledge and approval? :roll:

There's plenty of info in all the old threads. Don't bother derailing this one with further diversions.

2. The OP's title is:

Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

This has NOTHING to do with Obama's "response." You and the rest of the bubble head right wing droids are trying your damndest to link Obama to the crimes with which Blagojevich is charged. If you think you can do it, try posting some facts and links. Your unsubstantited idle speculation and blather are just more of the same lies and bullshit you've been spewing for years.

edit: OH, and by the way, Rove and Cheney were never charged with a crime by the very same prosecutor. So by your logic, they are completely innocent as is Obama right?

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the same prosecutor who tried Libby, the same prosecutor who announced the charges against Blagojevich, stated that Libby's failure to disclose the facts were the reason he could not pursue others in the Plame case.

He did NOT say there were no other guilty parties in that matter. He said only that he could not pursue further prosecutions because of the lack of evidence.

That same U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stated something entirely different in announcing the charges against Blagojevich. He said explicitly, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

That's a declarative, positive statement that, at least as far as he has informed us, there is no indication that Obama has committed any crime.

Does YOUR pathetic confused logic fail to see the difference? :roll:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You packing your bags yet?

Nope, you got a brain or a life yet?

 

[Lemon law]

While I agree that Blago is criminally corrupt, at this point in time, any implication that Obama is in any way connected with the Blago corruption is totally unestablished.

But it just gives righty tighty swift boaters just one more another conspiracy theory to masturbate about about in the coming years. Months ago it was clear that Blago was going down over bribery,
but this latest stunt over trying to sell the Obama seat for his own personal profit is what got Blagoevich busted before he got away with another crime. By all logic, there is no way Obama would involve himself with such skulduggery.

 

[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.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

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.

LOL. Bullshit. Perhaps I need to refer you to PlameGate? Or was that a smear campaign against Cheney and Rove?

Looks like you beat me to that buy a good 2 hours, LOL.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While I agree that Blago is criminally corrupt, at this point in time, any implication that Obama is in any way connected with the Blago corruption is totally unestablished.

But it just gives righty tighty swift boaters just one more another conspiracy theory to masturbate about about in the coming years. Months ago it was clear that Blago was going down over bribery,
but this latest stunt over trying to sell the Obama seat for his own personal profit is what got Blagoevich busted before he got away with another crime. By all logic, there is no way Obama would involve himself with such skulduggery.

Maybe he shouldn't have resigned his Senate seat so early then, or issue a statement that Blago should not be allowed to choose his successor as other Democrats have said.

 

[sportage]

:roll: MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING :roll:

And people get all pissy when someone posts a "repost" of some subject, like typing is some endangered treasured natural resource.
Now THIS thread is a waste of typing ...

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

1. Plame WAS outed by someone in the Bushwhacko administration. Cheney was documented to be fuming over Joseph Wilson's disclosure that, contrary to your Traitor In Chief's statements, there was no yellow cake uranium in Niger and was looking for ways to strike back at him. Libby worked directly under Cheney. Do you really think Libby would have done anything without Cheney's and Rove's knowledge and approval? :roll:

No evidence necessary, Harvey proclaims: Guilty!!!!!!!!!!!11111111ONEONEONEONEONEONE

LOL, you are such a pathetic hypocrite.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You packing your bags yet?

Nope, you got a brain or a life yet?

Oh yes, waiting and watching everyday for radical righties like you to leave.

It's quite a thing to witness and Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

In the words of Dorfman on Animal house "This is greeeeeeeat"!!!

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I have no problem with attacking corruption on both sides, and I for one am glad that Blagojevich was caught, but unlike you, I'd prefer to wait for ACTUAL corruption before going after someone...Obama hasn't done anything even remotely wrong, yet you want to burn him down. You're telling me that's not partisan?

I criticize the all-so-willing dismissal of any suspicion involving Obama and his associates the second the topic is brought up. I never said Obama did anything wrong, but every time one of his associations is questioned, it's instantly branded a "smear campaign" and anybody who dares call for a closer look into it is called every name in the book.

It happened with Wright, it happened with Ayers, it happened with Rezko, it's happening with Blago. I hate branding somebody because of their relationships, but when so much has been dismissed so readily, it is equally frustrating.

I for one just get tired of it. In all of these issues people aren't talking about what Obama did but what other people did. I want to know if Obama shares Wright's views. As far as I can see he hasn't espoused them nor has he implemented legislature that falls in line with them. Ayers is a professor at the University of Illnois, he was named citizen of the year by the city of Chicago. Can people say that Obama believes in bombing government buildings like Ayers did? If people want to attack Obama, do it on his policies, on his worth as a politician. The economy is in a recession and all McCain seemed to be talking about was Ayers.

Fact is Chicago and Illinois politics are dirty, but despite all the digging and insinuation that people have made about Obama he has come out of it pretty clean. Maybe it's because he is trying to be an honest person or maybe it's because he wasn't in the political system long enough for him to get embroiled in anything. Either way, I think that there are far more constructive and relevant criticisms and discussions that can be made regarding Obama and the fact that so many people are ignoring it for things that are innuendo at best is just exasperating. If people want to dig into it, then let them, it's a necessary part of being responsible citizens, but don't make it the centerpiece of your dissention.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

There's plenty of info in all the old threads. Don't bother derailing this one with further diversions.

Yah, that would be you who throws a hissy every time the name Plame, Rove and Cheney comes up. It's a great comparison, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll let others chase that one, I'm not a classless partisan like you.

2. The OP's title is:

Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

This has NOTHING to do with Obama's "response." You and the rest of the bubble head right wing droids are trying your damndest to link Obama to the crimes with which Blagojevich is charged. If you think you can do it, try posting some facts and links. Your unsubstantited idle speculation and blather are just more of the same lies and bullshit you've been spewing for years.

Gee, I guess in all your red face blathering once you saw the words "Plame, Rove, and Cheney" you didn't stop to read my posts, did you? You know - the facts and links that were provided by the Fitzgerald affadavit (where of course I don't ever try to link Obama to anything).

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the same prosecutor who tried Libby, the same prosecutor who announced the charges against Blagojevich, stated that Libby's failure to disclose the facts were the reason he could not pursue others in the Plame case.

He did NOT say there were no other guilty parties in that matter. He said only that he could not pursue further prosecutions because of the lack of evidence.

That same U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald stated something entirely different in announcing the charges against Blagojevich. He said explicitly, "... no allegations were being made that Obama was aware of any alleged scheming by Blagojevich."

That's a declarative, positive statement that, at least as far as he has informed us, there is no indication that Obama has committed any crime.

Does YOUR pathetic confused logic fail to see the difference? :roll:

From what I've read, it clearly appears Obama wasn't directly involved, and any direction that came from him was there would be no quid pro quo. But it's also clear that an advisor was in some sort of discussions, and that's what I think answers are needed around.

Please resume your distractions, flailing accusations, and blind defense of anything and everything related to Obama, the ironing is delious!

 

[alchemize]

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.

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.