Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PELarson
Obama's involment in Blagogate revealed!

"In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama?s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich."

Reminds me a little of Truman and the Pendergast machine in Kansas City MO.

So Obama's involvement is that he indirectly got Bloj busted by pushing for goody-goody ethics reforms and not that he was complicit in attempts to auction off his vacated senate seat to the highest bidder? Boooooooooooring.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: PELarson
Obama's involment in Blagogate revealed!

"In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama?s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich."

Reminds me a little of Truman and the Pendergast machine in Kansas City MO.

So Obama's involvement is that he indirectly got Bloj busted by pushing for goody-goody ethics reforms and not that he was complicit in attempts to auction off his vacated senate seat to the highest bidder? Boooooooooooring.

There must be something evil there. Several posters who already hated Obama have gut feelings.

 

[chess9]

http://www.slate.com/id/2206442/

Will he be convicted? Hmmmm...the evidence revealed so far looks very thin.

Regardless, the guy is an ethical monster. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

-Robert

 

[AAjax]

Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat

What worries me most about this situation isnt that I think Obama was involved tin the corruption (he's too smart for that I think) But why the denials, not to mention the web based news stories on this are disappearing (Link to defunct story on their meeting.) Im just wondering why?

Thread Merge

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Rainsford]

I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

The headline of the Gov's press release says they spoke about it (contrary to assertions by Obama):

Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat To fill President-Elect Barack Obama?s Senate seat

Fern

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

Screen grab of the deleted story.

Though not the content of the article, the title seems to imply the discussion on the Ill.gov site and is supprted by the now missing news article (same date)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

The headline of the Gov's press release says they spoke about it (contrary to assertions by Obama):

Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat To fill President-Elect Barack Obama?s Senate seat

Fern

It really doesn't say that. He is indeed discussing the US Senate seat, but it appears he's discussing it in the press release. Nothing in the headline or the release itself suggests he discussed it with Obama. The Governor congratulated Obama and discussed the Senate seat...in the press release. That doesn't mean the two events happened at the same time. Read the first sentence of the release...

After congratulating President-Elect Barack Obama on his decisive victory, Governor Rod R. Blagojevich announced today that he will take his time and use a diverse senior staff made up of key members of his administration who will assist him in selecting a suitable replacement for Obama.

That sure doesn't sound like he's discussing the seat with Obama...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

Screen grab of the deleted story.

Though not the content of the article, the title seems to imply the discussion on the Ill.gov site and is supprted by the now missing news article (same date)

Maybe it was deleted because the reporter who wrote it misunderstood the press release too?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-

:light: Ahh, I see what you're saying

(The article links two unrelated events, and gives the wrong impression)

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-

:light: Ahh, I see what you're saying

(The article links two unrelated events, and gives the wrong impression)

Fern

I will definitely say I think the press release was poorly written. I jumped to the same conclusion when I saw the title, it was only after reading (a couple of times) through the release itself that I changed my mind.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

Screen grab of the deleted story.

Though not the content of the article, the title seems to imply the discussion on the Ill.gov site and is supprted by the now missing news article (same date)

Maybe it was deleted because the reporter who wrote it misunderstood the press release too?

Maybe, but what a breakdown with Obama's own staff supporting (initially) the report. There was an additional story about their meeting but that too has disappeared. When I find the screen cap Ill post it.



It seems they they met in December to discuss budgets.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

Screen grab of the deleted story.

Though not the content of the article, the title seems to imply the discussion on the Ill.gov site and is supprted by the now missing news article (same date)

Maybe it was deleted because the reporter who wrote it misunderstood the press release too?

Maybe, but what a breakdown with Obama's own staff supporting (initially) the report. There was an additional story about their meeting but that too has disappeared. When I find the screen cap Ill post it.

Well predictably there is a lot of noise over the issue (in a way there wouldn't be if it was any other Senate seat in the country). And reporters generally being terrible at reporting isn't helping one bit. But so far there isn't a lot to go on here...if there is something to find, I'm betting the prosecutor for the case will find it. So far he seems to think Obama isn't involved.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor and Obama at least brought it up in passing...but the Governor and a former-Senator now-President-elect discussing the Senate seat just vacated by the latter is hardly out of the ordinary, is it? Even if they DID discuss it, that hardly seems like an indication that something shady was going on. If there are two people who SHOULD discuss the seat, it seems like it would be those two.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: AAjax

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I see nothing in the first story you linked to suggesting Blagojevich met with Obama to discuss his Senate seat...

Screen grab of the deleted story.

Though not the content of the article, the title seems to imply the discussion on the Ill.gov site and is supprted by the now missing news article (same date)

Maybe it was deleted because the reporter who wrote it misunderstood the press release too?

Maybe, but what a breakdown with Obama's own staff supporting (initially) the report. There was an additional story about their meeting but that too has disappeared. When I find the screen cap Ill post it.

Well predictably there is a lot of noise over the issue (in a way there wouldn't be if it was any other Senate seat in the country). And reporters generally being terrible at reporting isn't helping one bit. But so far there isn't a lot to go on here...if there is something to find, I'm betting the prosecutor for the case will find it. So far he seems to think Obama isn't involved.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor and Obama at least brought it up in passing...but the Governor and a former-Senator now-President-elect discussing the Senate seat just vacated by the latter is hardly out of the ordinary, is it? Even if they DID discuss it, that hardly seems like an indication that something shady was going on. If there are two people who SHOULD discuss the seat, it seems like it would be those two.

I agree, there is nothing unusual about that. What is strange is the denails, retractions and disappearing stories. Oh well, back to work.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: AAjax
-snip-
Screen grab of the deleted story.

Interesting.

Somebody's gotta know if that meeting actually happened back then.

Personally, I'd be mighty surprised if Obama and Blago didn't discuss the replacement even if only briefly and in generalties. I'd find it wierd if they didn't.

Nor can I see Obama doing much more. First, it's not his responsibility, and secondly he's had plenty of other stuff to take care of (staff, cabinet, considerations about the economy, move family to DC, schools for kids etc).

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AAjax
-snip-
Screen grab of the deleted story.

Interesting.

Somebody's gotta know if that meeting actually happened back then.

Personally, I'd be mighty surprised if Obama and Blago didn't discuss the replacement even if only briefly and in generalties. I'd find it wierd if they didn't.

Nor can I see Obama doing much more. First, it's not his responsibility, and secondly he's had plenty of other stuff to take care of (staff, cabinet, considerations about the economy, move family to DC, schools for kids etc).

Fern

Part of the reason I find the idea of Obama being involved in any kind of "shady" discussion a little hard to believe is that he's going to be President, which Democrat gets his old Senate seat doesn't really seem like it would be on the top of his priority list.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AAjax
-snip-
Screen grab of the deleted story.

Interesting.

Somebody's gotta know if that meeting actually happened back then.

Personally, I'd be mighty surprised if Obama and Blago didn't discuss the replacement even if only briefly and in generalties. I'd find it wierd if they didn't.

Nor can I see Obama doing much more. First, it's not his responsibility, and secondly he's had plenty of other stuff to take care of (staff, cabinet, considerations about the economy, move family to DC, schools for kids etc).

Fern

Part of the reason I find the idea of Obama being involved in any kind of "shady" discussion a little hard to believe is that he's going to be President, which Democrat gets his old Senate seat doesn't really seem like it would be on the top of his priority list.

Why would you think that? John Kennedy was pretty damn interested in his old Senate seat.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: AAjax
-snip-
Screen grab of the deleted story.

Interesting.

Somebody's gotta know if that meeting actually happened back then.

Personally, I'd be mighty surprised if Obama and Blago didn't discuss the replacement even if only briefly and in generalties. I'd find it wierd if they didn't.

Nor can I see Obama doing much more. First, it's not his responsibility, and secondly he's had plenty of other stuff to take care of (staff, cabinet, considerations about the economy, move family to DC, schools for kids etc).

Fern

Part of the reason I find the idea of Obama being involved in any kind of "shady" discussion a little hard to believe is that he's going to be President, which Democrat gets his old Senate seat doesn't really seem like it would be on the top of his priority list.

Why would you think that? John Kennedy was pretty damn interested in his old Senate seat.

I see no reason for him to be overly interested in it, certainly not to the point of doing anything underhanded about it. Kennedy had his motivations for suggesting his successor, but that also is hardly underhanded. For the President-elect to be involved in anything illegal or immoral here, he'd have to consider his former seat a MUCH higher priority than I can see any reason for him to.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
-snip-
I see no reason for him to be overly interested in it, certainly not to the point of doing anything underhanded about it.

Neither can I. The only possible thing I could see is that idiot Blago trying to get a "quid pro quo" out of Obama. I think that's pretty normal in politics, the difference here is Blago's clumsy, blatantly greedy and vulgar/clumsy approach to it. Frankly, I can't see Obama interested in it anyway. But I suppose even if Blago did approach Obama about a quid pro quo, no one would want to admit it for fear of getting unfairly tangled up in this BS.

I wouldn't doubt if there was already a lot of quid pro quo stuff going on with all the appointments and plum jobs available. However, I would expect it to be carried out with more finess and without the obviously criminality and overt greed exhibited by Blago.

Quid pro quo strikes me as an accepted and integral part of politics when conducted with some level of intellegence. Even the old *you vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours* is quid pro quo.

IMO, (even though I'm not a Dem) we really don't need this crap when starting with a new admin and I don't fault Obama. I blame that idiot Blago and find it unacceptibe he's been allowed to stay in office this long.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loozar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Obama didn't start that war. In fact, he was among the minority who had the wisdom and courage to speak against it before your Traitor In Chief started it. Now, he is inheriting that war from the Bushwhacko criminals. The blood of those fallen and the blood of those who will fall before it's over is entirely on the hands of George W. Bush and his murderous henchmen.

Nixon didn't start a war, either, and you hate him too. Shrug.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember Richard Nixon in real time. I am, and he was as vile and evil a criminal against the United States of America as your Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush. Nixon wasn't involved in the actual burglary into Democratic offices in the Watergate Hotel, but he was caught on his own taping system not only participating in the cover up, but taking hands on lead in directing it. Nixon also established the notorious White House Plumbers," some of whom were involved in Watergate break in and other highly illegal activities, including illegal surveillance, abuse and harrassment of American citizens on his infamous "enemies list" by the FBI and the IRS.

The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers, were a covert White House Special Investigations Unit established July 24, 1971 during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to stop the leaking of classified information to the news media. Its members branched into illegal activities working for the Committee to Re-elect the President, including the Watergate break-ins and the ensuing Watergate scandal.

History

The Plumbers were formed in response to the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times, beginning June 13, 1971. These documents detailed the history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Initially, White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman downplayed the matter to Nixon, stating that the information mainly made the Kennedy and Johnson administrations look bad. However, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and special counsel Charles Colson advocated a severe response to the massive leak in the form of publicly discrediting the leaker of the papers, former State Department and Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg.

On July 1, David Young joined the White House and together with Egil Krogh penned a memorandum to Nixon advisors Haldeman and John Ehrlichman advocating the formation of a White House Special Investigations Unit. Haldeman and Ehrlichman agreed to the plan and obtained the approval of Nixon. Young was put in charge of the unit and reported to Krogh. The nickname the "Plumbers" came to being when Young posted his name on his office door which read "David R. Young/Plumber".
.
.
(continues)

The two main differences between Nixon and your Traitor In Chief:

1. Unlike Bush, Nixon wasn't stupid, but he was easily as evil a criminal in his own ways.
   
2. He didn't have the power of current technology to monitor the Internet and phone communications of those whose rights he violated. If he had, it could have been much worse.

Beyond that, as Stoneburner noted, he authorized the secret bombing of Cambodia and expanded that war into Laos.

That's why I hate Nixon as much as I hate your Traitor In Chief. What kind of a jackass would try to defend either of them?

 

[TallBill]

I don't have a traitor in chief. It's a made up position in candy cane land. If you acted like an adult then I'd bother reading what you had to say. The cute little names are annoying, traitor in chief, libtards, rushbots, neocons. This is like high school where the theatre is making fun of the jocks who are making fun of the band geeks.

 

[ohnoes]

Sweet, Winnar came out of hiding from his last BS post. Hey retard, please rejoin the other fail thread of yours:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=SSS

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I don't have a traitor in chief. It's a made up position in candy cane land. If you acted like an adult then I'd bother reading what you had to say. The cute little names are annoying, traitor in chief, libtards, rushbots, neocons. This is like high school where the theatre is making fun of the jocks who are making fun of the band geeks.

And your point is?
So what?
This is what we do here.
Get over yourself.

-Robert

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I don't have a traitor in chief. It's a made up position in candy cane land. If you acted like an adult then I'd bother reading what you had to say. The cute little names are annoying, traitor in chief, libtards, rushbots, neocons. This is like high school where the theatre is making fun of the jocks who are making fun of the band geeks.

Why does every thread get trolled by Harvey with his little traitor in chief comment. I bet he thinks thats pretty smart of him coming up with something so cleaver. :roll: We got Harvey, and we got Dave, they're both wacko's. Make's me think they may be brothers.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: TallBill
I don't have a traitor in chief. It's a made up position in candy cane land. If you acted like an adult then I'd bother reading what you had to say. The cute little names are annoying, traitor in chief, libtards, rushbots, neocons. This is like high school where the theatre is making fun of the jocks who are making fun of the band geeks.

And your point is?
So what?
This is what we do here.
Get over yourself.

-Robert

My point is that this should be a forum for discussion. Hard to have anything like that when we're resorting to name calling. I find your last comment comical though, I have no desire to prove anything to anyone online.