« On a Lighter Note: Three Years Ago Today on GINA COBB | Main | AP Once Again Plays "Kick the President . . . and Ignore the 50 Million He Liberated" »

December 09, 2008


No wonder Obama was never worried about the eligibiliy issue. What is next with this guy? ABC won't even cover this up.

Ah, yes: Nothing like guilt-by-association (to Blagojevich, Rezko, et. al) and two-year-old-(plus) news reports/sound bites to 'prove' a point. Adding the fact that Jarrett is "Iranian by birth" and that she "hired Michelle Obama for a for a job in the Chicago mayor’s office _years ago_", just compounds, obviously, the 'proof' that Obama is knee-deep in the graft and corruption of the current IL governor.

C'mon folks, I thought this site was all about "News and commentary for _thinking_ people" - not for bovine acceptance of any old bs that's cobbled together and presented as 'proof.' Sheesh!
{From DR -- Yes, beth, I see your point.
That's why I've been very careful in putting this story together. However, the core of my story is this. The FBI affidavit clearly states:

Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the president-elect can get Rod Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect's pick to the Senate."

If the FBI report is valid, Obama offered Blagojevich a benefit in exchange for giving the Senate seat to Obama's favorite candidate. That's a very serious assertion by the FBI, and it's certainly not old news. This just happened a few weeks ago.

There is no guilt by association that I can see. I understand that it's a crime to offer a benefit like this.

Valerie Jarrett's background is relevant because clearly she is a long-time friend of the Obama's. However, this would not be an easy appointment for Blagojevich to make. Many people would complain that Jarrett's past should disqualify her for a Senate position. Given Jarrett's political weaknesses, it makes more sense to me that Blagojevich would demand a benefit in exchange for appointing her.

If you find something that proves me wrong, please post it!

--Pro Patria}

Let me get this straight, Old Barry has spent years involved with, and hanging around these folks and he's as clean as the wind driven snow? Yea, right! You think for a minute these thug politicians would allow Barry to hang around if he wasn't as dirty as they were? It's a pretty exclusive club, and you have to pay to play.

How long are you Obama groupies going to hang your own reps out there trying to defend this guy? How long do you think he would last if this were McCain? Is this the "change"? This the difference? This is the new leadership this nation needs? There isn't one person of good reputation or honor anywhere in Obama's history! Think about it! Man, folks, get a clue. Just read the above article again, and put Bush's name in there for Obama, and see how you feel. Now take those same feels and apply it to Obama. Now you've got it!!

[Part of what DR posted] “Blagojevich had been told by an adviser "the president-elect can get Rod Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the president-elect's pick to the Senate." [/part of what DR posted]

QUESTION: Does the FBI report _identify_ the person who is named as “an advisor”? Is the “advisor” one of Blagojevich’s advisors or one of Obama’s advisors? And, is that “advisor” one who is/was authorized to speak on _anyone’s_ behalf, or are they one seeking to curry favor by speaking out of their buttockal-area in hopes of being the ‘bearer of good tidings’ to the Gov…and reaping residual effects/benefits by being such a helpful, team-player?

As far as retracted stories…they don’t, by _any_ stretch of the imagination, ‘prove’ anything. It is not unheard of that reporters cite/state something that they _believe/think/supposed_ happened, but didn’t bother to check if it actually _had_! How many stories have been printed/reported about something and not a one of the ‘reporters’ have checked to see if the ‘facts’ they were reporting were even true? (Remember the “Bigger than Hogzilla” story that one reporter reported and everyone and their brother ‘ran with’ _without_ checking for its veracity?)

[Lengthy digression deleted]

From your linked story (on the WorldNet Daily site): “HotAir.com points out a Chicago Sun-Times story the day after the KHQA report quoted Blagojevich saying he had not spoken to Obama about the matter but would give "a great deal of weight" to the president-elect's recommendations.

Nevertheless, KHQA reported in a follow-up story Nov. 8 that ‘Obama met with Governor Rod Blagojevich earlier this week.’” [/quote from story]

Old Bloggo, according to the report, says he hasn’t spoken to Obama – would he have any reason to say he hadn’t _if_ he had? He had not a clue in the world that he was being investigated – why _wouldn’t_ he trumpet all over the place that he’d spoken w/ Obama if he had?

No, instead he says he hasn’t. So, so far, what both Obama and Old Bloggo _both_ report/say about any ‘meeting’/‘one-on-one discussion’ seems to be in concordance. _But_ then, the WorldNet Daily adds that, gee, shucks, and darn, since the news station had reported the two had met, that meeting, by golly, _must_ have taken place (hey, even the most dense can ‘get’ the insinuation of that ‘additional’ statement in the article, no?)

[part of what DR posted] “If the FBI report is valid, Obama offered Blagojevich a benefit in exchange for giving the Senate seat to Obama's favorite candidate. That's a very serious assertion by the FBI, and it's certainly not old news. This just happened a few weeks ago.”[/part of what DR posted]

QUESTION: Could you provide a cite, DR, for “Obama offered Blagojevich a benefit in exchange for [_anything_]”?

{From DR -- Yes, Beth, just click on the link that's associated with my statement. Also, at the stop of my story, you can download the entire pdf file of the FBI affidavit.}

Is that factually and accurately what the FBI report _states_ OR is that an interpretation/extrapolation _you_ have ‘read into’ the FBI indictment/report?

If it is, in fact, part of the FBIs report, then, yes, certainly, it _is_ “a very serious assertion”…if, on the other hand, it is an ‘assertion’ someone is _purporting_ the FBI has made (or _wishes_ the FBI had made. AKA: if it is something made up to fit their own personal bias/agenda), then it is certainly time to rethink how well they’ve learned to take in, digest, and truly comprehend what they read and/or hear.

I, personally, wouldn’t like to mess with what is in an FBI report… _even if_ I thought it wasn’t written the way I felt it should be written. Maybe that’s just me though…

--and I would assert that _specifically_ bringing up her "Iranian" background is nothing more than an attempt to inflame the emotions of someone against _any_ person of Middle Eastern heritage. In the context in which it's used, sorry, the word "pejorative" comes to mind…--

{From DR -- Beth, thanks for your comment!
There are two main ways to investigate this issue. One is the hypothetico-deductive method, which is the reasoning approach that scientists use. The other is the legal method, which law enforcement, lawyers, and judges use. The two methods are both based on formal deductive and inductive logic, and they are done in quite similar ways.

I'm a scientist, and I like to start with the hypothetico-deductive method. The key questions are (1) is there a phenomenon, and (2) what caused it? According to me, there is strong evidence that Blago demanded a benefit, and he received offers of benefits. Some came from Obama or his camp. The competing explanations about what happened seem very improbable.

You are approaching the legal method, which asks, is an individual in question guilty of breaking a certain law? This website is not a law court and I have no intention of personally convicting Obama of any lawbreaking. I will not speculate if he would be found guilty of something in a court of law.

But a flood of evidence is emanating from these investigations. Right now I am observing phenomena and trying to interpret their meaning. My working hypothesis is that Obama's camp knew that a benefit was requested from Blago. There is a lot of evidence which supports that hypothesis, and not much which dis-confirms it.

I am interested in any evidence which would confirm or dis-confirm that hypothesis.

Speculative ventures like this are important. For example, scientific curiosity led someone to investigate the authenticity of Obama's online Certificate of Live Birth. This led to published conclusions, which led to a lawsuit, which led to dozens of lawsuits. Many of those lawsuits were and are reasoned out on website discussions before they are filed as court documents.

-- Pro Patria}

Ummm, I hate to be pesky with asking about little things like factual (verifiable) evidence, but I do have a couple more questions about the ‘facts’ stated in the above Update…

[part of what DR posted] “Obama offered benefits to Blagojevich to have Valerie Jarrett appointed to the Senate seat, but they were not lucrative enough for Blagojevich, so he turned Obama down.[/end of quoted part]
Cite, please, for this ‘fact.’ Might there be a confusing, here (with this ‘fact’), of what _Harris_ opined/told Blagojevich they _might_ be able to get (from Obama)? Is this statement being confused with a self-held notion that Obama (or anyone on his behalf) made _any_ ‘offers’ to Blagojevich? I think there is some confusion about what the indictment actually states.

(Please remember: the intercepted telephone calls are between Blagojevich and his aides, his advisors, his etc, and they involve the playing out of different wheeling and dealing scenarios between the cronies…kind of like a giant game of “what if” played amongst a bunch of people all trying to find themselves the best ‘deal.’ The intercepted conversations are NOT between any in/of the Blagojevich camp and _anyone_ directly in/of the Obama camp. There seems to be some confusion about that – seems to be some confusion about who the actual participants in the intercepted calls were…and great confusion that the participating cronies’ wouldn’t-it-be-nice, wishful-thinking and ‘maybes’/possibly/‘what ifs’, are _anything_ ‘definite’…except in their own minds.)

[part of what DR posted] “Blagojevich refused the deal with Obama on Nov 11.” [/end of quoted part]
The way the above quoted sentence is written, it sounds as if (_strongly_ implies) that Old Blaggo and Obama were in hot and heavy negotiations, BUT that Old Blaggo pulled out of them because Obama wasn’t going to give him (OB) all he (OB) wanted. I do believe it was intentionally written that way. That it is absolutely and totally _not_ what the FBI report states (and/or even hints at); in other words: the above quoted sentence is such a spinning of the _facts_ that it makes a corkscrew look straight in comparison. And the sad part is, someone will read the sentence, take it as absolutely truthful, and will pass it on to who knows how many others as ([presumed] verified, wholly accurate, un-spun) _truth_. (I’m assuming that the ‘fact’ behind the above quoted sentence would be the portion of the transcripts/indictment, (listed as) #104, here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1209081rod13.html ?)

Interestingly, both the FBIs Chicago Field Division press release on the indictment, and pages 54 through 74 of the 76-page FBI affidavit, itself, are available for all to read. The former, “ILLINOIS GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF JOHN HARRIS ARRESTED ON FEDERAL CORRUPTION CHARGES”, is at: http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/dec09_08.htm and the latter, here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1209081rod1.html

There’s a responsibility in journalism and/or public-accessible media, I firmly believe, to speak truth, not disingenuous spin; to speak facts, not fabrications; to educate and enlighten, not promote foolish and mindlessness. I could be wrong about that…

(and if I’ve stepped on any toes by making that statement, I apologize. It’s just that working with young people in this day and age of the Internet, the mantra of “verify, verify, verify; verify everything!” has become utterly commonplace. It used to be that the need for verification was something reserved for only the _rarest_ of occasions/source…not so, any more. ‘tis truly a pity.)

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."



  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.