Senate Candidate 1 is Valerie Jarrett, an Obama advisor who also served as Daley’s Chief of Staff. Jarrett is very close to the Obamas. Senate Candidate 4 is either Dean Martinez, Bob Greenlee or Louanner Peters, all of whom are Deputy Governors of Illinois.

The “specifically named individual” is Michelle Obama, who was appointed to the Board of TreeHouse Foods, a WAL-MART vendor, on June 25, 2005, even though she did not have experience in the private sector previous to the appointment. Here are the benefits the Obama family received as a result of Michelle Obama’s stint with the WAL-MART vendor:

Blagojevich, in other words, assumed Obama would appoint his wife to a Board for the political favor of selecting Valerie Jarrett for the Senate seat. Blagojevich is not a stupid man. Indeed, he only assumed Obama would participate in this “pay to play” scheme, for he knows Obama is acutely aware how the game is played in Illinois and in Chicago. This explains why Blagojevich mentions Michelle Obama and her lack of qualifications to serve on the Board of TreeHouse Foods when he discusses how Obama could appoint Mrs. Blagojevich to a Board for the political favor of appointing Jarrett to the US Senate seat. Michelle, after all, was appointed to sit on the Board of TreeHouse foods AFTER Obama was elected to the US Senate. Moreover, Michelle Obama’s salary at The University of Chicago nearly TRIPLED after her husband gained the power to submit earmark requests on her employer’s behalf. Just appoint the spouse to a Board and increase his or her salary if you need a political favor from an Illinois politician. That is how the “play to pay” game is played.

Michelle Obama, Blagojevich implies, received an appointment to a Board for which she was not qualified as a result of a “pay to play” scheme. What about his wife? After all, Obama ally Valerie Jarrett wants the Senate seat. What about Blagojevich’s wife? What about Blagojevich’s “financial stress?”

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
All of you are blaming the Obama's with circumstantial (if even that) "evidence". The old argumentative fallacy of "Guilt By Association".

You know your argument sucks when it is listed as a fallacy.

Argumentative Fallacy: Guilty By Association

Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called "Appeal to Anti-Authority". An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups.

Funny enough, McCarthyism was a prime example of this (something some of you are still guilty of today).

[edit on 12/10/2008 by Irish M1ck]

Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial evidence is any indirect evidence of a fact that helps to establish the guilt or innocence of a defendant through reasoning.

Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, infer a conclusion that supports a litigant’s version of the facts. The inference provoked from circumstantial evidence must flow logically, reasonably, and naturally from the facts presented.

Criminal prosecutors often rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based solely, or primarily, on circumstantial evidence, particularly in cases involving liability.

Some legal experts would even argue that circumstantial evidence could carry more weight in a case than direct evidence.