Friday
Apr232010
Blagojevich Wants To Subpoena Obama: Redactions Accidentally Revealed
Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's lawyers have plans to issue a subpoena to President Obama in the governor's corruption case. The document was supposed to be heavily redacted, but apparently a simple copy and paste of it into a new document has revealed it's concealments.
The revelations include:
1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko.
2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarrett for his Senate seat.
3. An Obama supporter may have offered a quid pro quo for Jarrett's 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 and Blagojevich had a secret phone call.
Permalink | tagged Obama lies, Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko
Reader Comments (29)
The Chicago Way.
Lol. All of these "may have's" are according to Blago. Too funny. But perfect headlines for WorldNutDaily or Glenn Beck's show.
I'm thinking Blagojevich may be connected enough to know where the bodies are buried.
Anyone think it was an accident that Blago's people failed at redaction efforts?
Sunlight MIGHT actually hit the scurrying Chicago cockroaches.
History has shown us what happens when Chicago gangsters double cross each other...ain't purty.
And this kind of 'stuff' connected to Obama is surprising to whom? I'm sure with his popularity so sky high he can shake this off.
Well, that's how the system works.
One quibble, GrayRider...Blago's lawyers haven't issued a subpoena. They've filed a motion requesting that the court issue a subpoena. There's obviously a big difference between the two; attorneys can file motions for just about anything, but it means nothing unless the court concurs in the motion.
If Blago's lawyers convince the judge to approve their motion, so be it. History suggests that they'll have an uphill battle, but we shall see.
There is no way in hell Dear Leader will be (or will allow himself to be) compelled to appear in this case. Period.
And rightly so, by the way...
I'll assume that there are a myraid of constitutional provisions regarding situations where a stitting President may or not may not be involved in a criminal case.
Dear Leader is unquestionably every bit the narcissistic, ego-maniacal sociopath Blago is, but that doesn't necessarily mean the guy should have to drag his sorry ass into a courtroom.
How about if Obama just pulls a Bush and claims "executive priveledge" on everything to avoid investigations?
Well, Dude, the "experts" in the article I link suggest that one big factor is that Obama is not a defendant, but rather a defense witness; they suggest that this differs significantly from Clinton's deposition in the Jones case, because Clinton was a defendant in that case. The only other Presidential involvement they mention is Reagan's deposition in the Iran-Contra investigation. That isn't a lot of precedent, so we may see some interesting arguments going both ways.
To some degree, I think that a chunk of this is grandstanding. For instance, the motion talks about "supporters" passing messages, as well as Emanuel's involvement, but (as far as I can find) Blago's lawyers haven't requested subpoenas against any of them. I suspect that, as one of the experts suggested, the judge will ask something like "well, why aren't you asking for subpoenas against them?" Blago's lawyers will have to be VERY convincing, I think...
It's not a stretch to believe that Obama and Emanuel attempted to hand pick Obama's successor. Blagojevich gets caught trying to sell the seat, then felt betrayed and wants to sing about his enemies' involvement for the sake of revenge and an attempt to possibly lessen the severity of his legal troubles.
But, I agree...Obama's not likely to comply.
It's called spell check for a reason, bright boy.
Hey now...
Mine was a typo!!!!!
But enough with the whole f*cking "but Bush!!!" crap. If the kid can't defend Dear Leader without resorting to that sh*t, then I'll be happy to do flame his ass over more than just his spelling.
Hijack:
While economy crumbled, top financial watchdogs at SEC surfed for porn on Internet: memo
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/04/23/2010-04-23_porn_among_daily_duties_of_top_sec_honchos_sez_report.html#ixzz0lwvMqGag
This is why we need more gov't agencies watching over us. They are so proficient at what they do.
In the executive privilege Hall of Fame sits Bill Clinton i.e. "I assert executive privilege over my security detail" in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So bow down the king boys.
Why can’t Obama do a deposition in the WH? Selling a United States Senate seat that the current President resided in doesn’t rise to the level of importance for a simple deposition?
It’s a PR mistake for Obama to stonewall this issue. With his prior involvement with the main characters (Rezko and Blago) people are rightly suspicious.
Personally, TM, I think he should give a deposition IF the court issues a subpoena. I would only have two general concerns, one for Blago's lawyers and one for claims of executive privilege (which I would expect to be made on general Executive principle - Presidents ALWAYS try to claim executive privilege these days):
1) Blago's lawyers are going to have to come up with a LOT more than "it may have been him" if they want that subpoena, and they're going to have to come up with more than Emanuel and "Obama supporters" (or the judge will say, "well, subpoena THEM, not the President.")
2) Executive privilege is not retroactive. I would expect Obama, in general, to give a deposition about actions/events before he took office (or, perhaps, before he started transition activities?), but a privilege claim would seem to carry greater weight if/when they start poking around with events after he took office. (How do the alleged events measure against the election/transition/inauguration timeline?)
Blagojevich was arrested on federal corruption charges on December 9, 2008, well before the innauguration.
Wow. So Obama thought Valerie Jarrett would be a good pick for Senate and be a good Senator for the people of Illinois who could get re-elected? Such shocking stuff here!
Rahm Emmanuel floated Cheryl Jackson for the Senate seat? Wow! Is Cheryl Jackson the head of NAMBLA or something? If not then who cares?
Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates? And this is surprising why?
An Obama supporter may have offered a quid pro quo for Jarrett to be made Senator? Same question that I've been asking for over a year now, and you think that this doesn't happen everyday in every both political parties? You think it is a coincidence that people in leadership positions in both parties generally tend to be the ones with the largest fund raising networks?
Do you really believe that every President for the past 70 years hasn't gotten legislation passed by saying hey, if you vote for this I'll do a fundraiser for you or campaign for you?
I remember saying when Blago was impeached and removed that Democrats would probably come to regret dispensing with him so quickly, no matter how much they disliked him.
Yep, kwAwk, I think that the judge is going to have some LONG discussions with counsel before making his decision, and a lot of it will be tossing out the Emanuel/Jarrett stuff. Blago's lawyers are going to have to come up with some serious AND unique needs that only Obama's testimony can fill, if they're serious about this subpoena.
"Do you really believe that every President for the past 70 years hasn't gotten legislation passed by saying hey, if you vote for this I'll do a fundraiser for you or campaign for you?"
Or bribes for WH jobs. See HC legislation.
I see Kwawk still doesn't understand why federal corruption is wrong.
Mach - A few years ago the right was complaining that the left was trying to criminalize politics. A lot of this stuff you guys are complaining about really is trying to criminalize politics.
All politicians appoint their political supporters to government positions. This is why they are called political appointees. All politicians work to fund raise for each other based upon their political connections. It isn't criminal it is politics.
Was it criminal when Bush appointed one of the Swift Boat Veteran's biggest donors to be the ambassador to Belgium? No.
kwAwk, of course we all understand that. And that's fine and the legal prerogative of an elected official. What's at issue here, is that Blago may be trying to implicate the president in an illegal quid pro quo.
Kwawk, would you characterize it as criminal, or politics, if Obama and his supporters had orchestrated Blago's downfall so Obama could get someone he wanted in his senate seat?
Gray - My contention would be that the reason we're not hearing more about this from the Republican political apparatus is that they know damn well that this is an everyday occurrence in US politics whether it be at the Federal or the State level.
It may appear as a revenge motif Blago may be trying to bring down Obama but this type of activity is almost expected in American politics, that political leaders work to get their own people nominated to various positions. I'm still not seeing the there there.
This activity pales in comparison to the K-Street project if indeed this is criminal behavior, and I probably don't need to remind you that the reaction from the right was utter silence at best, and at worst blind defense and loyalty about the issue when confronted with it.
Is this really a can of worms you want to open for the prospect creating President Biden?
Mach -- Blago orchestrated his own downfall by being pretty hard headed about a lot of issues while in office. He fueded with Mike Madigan for years over budget issues and refused to move to Springfield to live in the governor's mansion.
He was considered to be aloof, disrespectful and arrogant to the people in the Illinois legislature so they used this opportunity to get rid of him. It really didn't have much to do with Obama and had a lot to do with Lisa and Mike Madigan.
If only...