Pants on Fire

NBC Chicago: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request

Okay, without getting too much into the background (the point of Assigned Reading is that you read it yourself, folks!), what you need to know is that yesterday, counsel for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed a motion asking to issue a trial subpoena to President Barack Obama in order to determine what he knew about what became of his former seat in the U.S. Senate.

The subpoena request was apparently improperly formatted, and the redacted parts were available for everyone to see.  Thanks to people doing their job as journalists (at least it seems that way), we can now see what it was which was redacted.

Of course, while this president going back on his word is about as surprising as Ricky Martin’s recent announcement that he was batting for the other team, seeing these things in print is just fun.  So, here’s a tease — for the rest, you’ll have to visit the linked NBC Chicago site.

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

In a recent in camera proceeding, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich … The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.

That last part, of course, directly contradicts statements made by the president that he never contacted Rod Blagojevich with regard to the Senate seat.  So, it’s another overt lie by this president and this administration — but, at this point, who’s counting anymore?

Share

Comments

  1. Lilly says:

    BO lied to the FBI during the investigation (not that we didn’t suspect that anyway). Isn’t that a criminal offense that Martha Stewart got convicted of? Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.
    So, when are the charges going to be filed? This will be worse the watergate. Should be a fun trial to watch, even from IL.

  2. Joe Vines says:

    When the time finally comes, this “man who wanted to be king” is going to hit the floor like a sack of spuds. KO’d! I knew Blago had to be good for something in this world.

  3. Gail B. says:

    Now we’re getting to TRANSPARENCY!! ROFLMAO!

  4. Boston Blackie says:

    Lily,
    Dream on, we can only hope! We all know that if subpoenaed, president obeyme will claim executive privilege.
    It states “members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations or procedures of the executive branch”. However, this privilege does not extend to information relevant to a criminal investigation. Also, it was before he was sworn in but somehow that won’t make a difference to an admin that thinks the Constitution isn’t worth the paper it was written on.

  5. William A. Rose says:

    You are right Boston. The privilege doesn’t extend to info relevant to a criminal investigation, but you can bet it will.

  6. Take a hike says:

    I M P E A C H (with the new House in 2011).
    Elections, really do have, consequences.

  7. Obama is waffling says:

    Leggo my Blago

  8. Anonymous says:

    Geppetto, what a liberty-hating chucky of a puppet you have created this time.

  9. Jack Ott says:

    We tea partiers are amused by all of these normal goings on of Obama and the Chicago political machine. They surely keep us entertained, and at last we really have something worthwhile to say “thank you” for to the world’s current messiah.

  10. whats_up says:

    To take a hike:

    LOL, exactly what would cause impeachment proceddings to begin. Remember there is a set criteria for impeachment and it cant be that you simply disagree with the Presidents politics.

  11. Hiking the Appalachian says:

    It seems there may be some high misdemeanors mentioned in the redacted portions of that article, maybe lying to investigators, similar to your beloved Clinton lying to investigators (Impeachment I).

  12. Monica says:

    Lying about corruption is so much worse than lying about cigar play.

  13. Last laugh says:

    That’s a nervous LOL from you, right, whats_up?
    Corruption will be weeded out, no matter the color of ones skin.

Speak Your Mind

*