By DemocracyRules
h/t Gina Cobb, World Net Daily, Degree of Madness, The Anchoress, Data on file
Obama and Blagojevich: Follow the money. Follow the contacts. They lead back to Obama.
“Offering a benefit” means to give, offer, or promise anything of value to any public official, with the intent of influencing that official in the performance of their duties [See Note 1.]
Blagojevich has been under criminal investigation for five years, and throughout that time he and Obama have been associates and mutual supporters. Blagojevich clearly thought he could obtain a benefit from Obama. On that basis, he actually did solicit a benefit, although he was not able to get a good enough deal from Obama. 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.
My observations are not speculation, they are based on existing evidence. All I did was take the known facts and order them in time sequence. The evidence is there for all to see. But please don't hesitate to check my sources. I think you will agree with my conclusions. And then tell everyone you know!
photo: Valerie Jarrett and daughter.
Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett (a.k.a., 'Candidate 1') to be appointed to the Senate seat. The Obama's are long time friends and associates of Jarrett. Valerie Jarrett hired Michelle Obama for a job in the Chicago mayor’s office years ago. Jarrett is a Chicago businesswoman who was a high-level adviser to Obama's presidential campaign, and is one of three co-chairmen of Obama's transition team.
On Nov 3, Blagojevich said on tape, "Unless I get something real good for Valerie Jarrett, s***, I'll just send myself, you know what I'm saying." The Senate appointment was a very high priority for Obama. Before the election, Blagojevich said about he and Obama, "We have had some discussions about a process which we'll share... if all goes well." Obama's campaign stated he would meet with Blagojevich about it the day after the election. Obama did meet with Blagojevich on Nov 5 to discuss the senate seat [details below in Note 2].
Obama's aide David Axelrod confirmed these discussions between Obama and Blagojevich about the the senate seat. David Axelrod told Fox News Chicago on Nov. 23: "I know [Obama has] talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them" [see Note 2].
Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett to take the seat. Iranian by birth, Valerie Jarrett is a long-time player in Chicago politics, and has been involved in several Chicago real estate scandals. She was a business associate of Rezko. Rezko is also tied to Blagojevich. Rezko and his associates tried to get U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald fired. He is the man prosecuting Rezko and Blagojevich .
There are many who disapprove of Valerie Jarrett’s past. Judicial watch says, "Like Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine. And it is no stretch to say that she was a slumlord," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have real concerns about Jarrett's ethics. Washington already has plenty of corruption. We don't need to import more of it from Chicago."
On Nov 11, in a phone conversation with an aide, Blagojevich talked at length about Valerie Jarrett and said he knew that Obama wanted her for the open seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. (Expletive) them."
Blagojevich almost certainly got a reply from Obama about his demand for a benefit. The FBI affidavit says 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."
The FBI tapes indicate Blagojevich wanted to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself or his wife. Blagojevich made specific proposals to Obama. These proposals didn't include just having his wife on paid corporate boards. Blagojevich wanted a cabinet post, placement at a private foundation in a significant position, campaign contributions, or an ambassadorship.
Blagojevich refused the deal with Obama on Nov 11. On Nov 12, Valerie Jarrett made it known that she was not interested in the Senate seat. Three days later, on Nov 15, Obama announced that Jarrett would be a senior White House adviser and assistant for intergovernmental relations.
Obama and Blagojevich have a long history of collaboration. Obama and Rahm Emanuel were two of the chief strategists for Blagojevich's initial run for governor in 2002.
One top aide to Obama, Michael Strautmanis, also previously worked for Blagojevich. Strautmanis is a native of Chicago and was legislative director and counsel to Blagojevich when he was a Congressman. He also helped Blagojevich win the governorship in 2002. Obama has appointed Strautmanis to a senior position in the White House staff.
Obama is also close to Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (a.k.a., 'Candidate 4'). Jones has been Blagojevich's strongest supporter in the Illinois legislature.
Obama also knows 'Candidate 5' very well. He is Jesse Jackson jr.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTES
Note 1. Here is some specific US law that may be relevant:
§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
...
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;...
Note 2. In the main body of the text I write, "Obama, and his campaign stated he would meet with Blagojevich about it the day after the election. Obama did meet with Blagojevich on Nov 5 to discuss the senate seat." But since then there have been several surprising developments. Obama denies having a direct meeting, and the confirmatory news reports have tried to "disappear".
On Dec 9, Obama said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening [concerning any possible dealing about Blagojevich's appointment of a successor]".
On Dec 10, Obama said:
Question: "Have you ever spoken to [Illinois] Gov. [Rod R.] Blagojevich about the Senate seat?"
Obama: "I have not discussed the Senate seat with the governor at any time."
Obama has made only a very technical denial, because he does not deny he discussed this with one of his own staff, who then spoke to Blagojevich. Most important, Obama doesn't deny that one of Obama's staff spoke to one of Blagojevich's staff, which of course is how these things are usually done. I would call this "denial lite".
One of
Blagojevich's main go-betweens was Deputy Governor Greenlee, who resigned on Dec 10.
Greenlee appears to have been "Deputy Governor A," who is frequently named in the
complaint. "Deputy Governor A" was heavily involved in the
negotiations between Blagojevich's camp and Obama's camp. If one of Obama's staff spoke to Greenlee, then Obama would be legally correct in saying he did not speak directly to Blagojevich.
In fact, the main communication appears to have mainly gone on between Obama's staff and Greenlee. Both Obama and Blagojevich appear to have been aware of the content of the discussions. The FBI affidavit 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.'"
Four credible news sources and the FBI affidavit indicate that Obama's camp communicated with Blagojevich's camp.
(1) Before Nov 4, Blagojevich discussed the Senate seat appointment with a reporter and said about Obama, "I just don't want to jinx him and I don't like the karma of me thinking that far ahead, "Blagojevich said of Obama's prospects in Tuesday's election. The governor added, "We have had some discussions about a process which we'll share... if all goes well."
(2) On Nov. 23, 2008, David Axelrod told Fox News Chicago : "I know [Obama has] talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." Obama's campaign now claims Axelrod "misspoke". See Note 3 below to view the tape.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(3) On Nov 5, 2008, This story appeared:
Ill. Governor Meeting with Obama Today
By Carol Sowers Wednesday, November 05, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.
CHICAGO, ILL. — Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White
House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to
be filled. That’s one of Obama’s first priorities today. He’s meeting
with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.
Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement.
This story has since been pulled from its original news website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(4) On Nov 8, 2008, this story confirmed that Obama did meet with Blagojevich on Nov 5 to discuss the senate seat:
Department of Veterans' Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth Considered For Senate Seat.
By Alexis Hunt, [email protected] Saturday, November 08, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. QUINCY, IL -- Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled.
Obama met with Governor Rod Blagojevich earlier this week to discuss it. Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement. There's already been speculation about his selection...from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Junior to Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth.
Duckworth made an appearance in Saturday's Veterans' parade in Quincy. We asked her about the possibility of filling Obama's seat.
"The Governor's office confirmed yesterday that he is considering me and I am deeply honored jus to be considered. I hope whoever is selected is someone who is willing to travel around the state and gets to know this wonderful state. I'm just honored to be considered," Duckworth said.
The governor expects to make his decision before Christmas. Part of the timing depends on when Obama officially vacates his senate seat.
This story has also been pulled from its original news website.
I thought this might happen, so I made sure I backed up the information before it was pulled. The original evidence has also been preserved on other websites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(5) On Nov 10, 2008, the news source for stories (3) and (4) disavowed all knowledge and responsibility for story (3). TV station retracts stories about Obama-Blago meeting. They try to explain why they made the stories "disappear". They disavow all responsibility for story (3). However, they don't disavow story (3), they just pulled it. The author of story (4), Alexis Hunt , at [email protected] might know what's going on.
Note 3. This is the Axelrod interview. He doesn't seem to have "misspoken" to me.
Note 4. Here are some relevant news reports about the long-standing associations between Obama and Blagojevich:
Obama Advised Blagojevich On His Victorious Gubernatorial Run. “That year, [Obama] gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform.” (Ryan Lizza, “Making It,” The New Yorker, 7/21/08)
Obama: “If the governor asks me to work on his behalf, I’ll be happy to do it.” (John Patterson, “Senator Says He’s Still Willing To Help Blagojevich Despite Hiring Concerns,” Chicago Daily Herald, 7/27/06)
Obama Endorsed Blagojevich For A Second Term. “Obama, who endorsed Blagojevich for a second term nearly 18 months ago, said he’s ready to help Illinois democrats in the upcoming elections.” (John Patterson, “Senator Says He’s Still Willing To Help Blagojevich Despite Hiring Concerns,” Chicago Daily Herald, 7/27/06)
Obama: “We’ve got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois.” (Deanna Bellandi, “Illinois Democrats Talk Unity But Don’t Show It,” The Associated Press, 8/16/06)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Follow the money. Follow the contacts.
-- Pro Patria
No wonder Obama was never worried about the eligibiliy issue. What is next with this guy? ABC won't even cover this up.
Posted by: rlitzen | December 10, 2008 at 03:55 PM
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}
Posted by: beth | December 10, 2008 at 04:25 PM
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!!
Posted by: comsense08 | December 10, 2008 at 07:35 PM
[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}
Posted by: beth | December 11, 2008 at 12:18 AM
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.)
Posted by: beth | December 11, 2008 at 03:16 AM