Uncovered Portions of Blacked-Out Subpoena Suggest Obama Advised Blagojevich on Senate Replacement

Uncovered Portions of Blacked-Out Subpoena Suggest Obama Advised Blagojevich on Senate Replacement

www.foxnews.com

On Thursday, Blagojevich's lawyers asked a federal judge to subpoena the president to testify about questions surrounding the government's allegation that Blagojevich was selling or trading Obama's Senate seat after his election to the White House in November 2008.

"President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation," reads Blagojevich's 11-page motion, filed with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 23-4-2010 by trueperspective]

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]

WOW, this is huge! I can't believe this. Will this be something that sticks, or is it going to be swept under the rug like everything else that people have tried to tie with Obama. Time will tell I guess

This is crazy if it is true. Does anyone know what could happen if there was foal play? I say if he is involved in some sort of conspiracy that would just give credence to all of the other things that people accuse him of lying about

This is pretty condemning I think:


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-4-2010 by trueperspective]

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]

Swept under the rug or be proven to be propaganda against Obama. Well now we know Fox News is fair and balanced that's why they have given millions to the republicans.

reply to post by damwel


This isn't "Whirled Nut Daily" and they have a link to the original subpoena so I don't know how this information is "propoganda"

Not only that but if a layer is going to a judge, he must think he has something.

Originally posted by damwel
or be proven to be propaganda against Obama.

How can that be?
It is an actual court document.

Advised and Bribed are two different things. The title of the article says "Advised", which is perfectly legal.

reply to post by Aggie Man



Call it what you will...

A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment
Redacted portion: Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 149).

Obama would never be involved in this sort of thing
Pay attention to the last line..

Redacted portion: However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama. 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. … Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having
conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and
administration, which the public official denies having had.

Redacted footnote: The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama.

I guess the neato sounding "quid pro quo" makes the yucky sounding "bribery" word sound so dirty and illegal.

Cheers.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Actually I believe the issue is LYING not bribing. He said that he had NOTHING to do with the placement of a new candidate which is lying because the subpoena says he did.

That is why the lawyer is trying to get him summoned to court.

If he lyed that is HUGE and I would be WAY more inclined to think he has done it about the other things that people accuse him of

reply to post by jibeho


...may...

...believed...

...belief... x2

These are terms to describe hard facts?

Call it what you will.

Originally posted by damwel
Swept under the rug or be proven to be propaganda against Obama. Well now we know Fox News is fair and balanced that's why they have given millions to the republicans.

Shame on Fox News for reporting on such trash.

Gimme a break. This case is what it is and people need to know that Obama is alleged to have taken part in this mess. Not to mention the 3 people very close to Obama. Rahm and Rezko and Jarrett. Jarrett is probably the closest to Obama out of that choice bunch.

Unfortunately, most people had forgotten all about this case and its link to Obama by now. Read through the old threads on ATS back when the story broke. It should all come back to you pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by jibeho

 

...may...

...believed...

...belief... x2

These are terms to describe hard facts?

Call it what you will.

You're right. We'll just let the court decide for a change?? These are the allegations like them or not and I will let the chips fall where they may in this mess. Blago and those implicated are innocent until proven quilty by a preponderance of the evidence. They have countless hours of recorded phone calls in this case so it will be interesting.

Originally posted by jibeho
We'll just let the court decide for a change??

Agreed!

It could go either way.

reply to post by Aggie Man


And if it goes "south" and obama is implicated, what will you be saying then? Making up excuses to try and protect obama such as, "everyone else did it, too?"

No doubt it will once again come down to depending on what the meaning of is is ...



[edit on 4/23/2010 by centurion1211]

There are 2 possiblities, one is that he will either appear and give testimony or he will fight it on the grounds he is immune. If he does the latter, then the question is what does he have to hide and should he remain in office for violating the laws of the state of Illinois and Federal statues, as he would have comitted a crime. Voter and election fraud is a felony and it would mean he could not stay in office, and especially if it is proven in a court of law. If they allow for him to do such, then the federal government is broken.

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

And if it goes "south" and obama is implicated, what will you be saying then? Making up excuses to try and protect obama such as, "everyone else did it, too?"

No doubt it will once again come down to depending on what the meaning of is is ...

[edit on 4/23/2010 by centurion1211]

And what will you say when he is NOT implicated? Making up excuses?

That really was an unnecessary comment.



Typical LEO

Yeah, what will Obama say??

I think everyone NEEDS to understand the implications here. If he does get summoned to court he is screwed either way. WHY??

Because he either says he had nothing to do with the whole thing and then it is his word vs. more then 2 witnesses that said that he advised and made contact with candidates.

If he CHANGES his story and says that he DID contact candidates and had an advisory role in the selection of the new senator then he LIED. and he is a LIER and I will be convinced that he can not be trusted just like most people already think.

Originally posted by trueperspective
Yeah, what will Obama say??

I think everyone NEEDS to understand the implications here. If he does get summoned to court he is screwed either way. WHY??

Because he either says he had nothing to do with the whole thing and then it is his word vs. more then 2 witnesses that said that he advised and made contact with candidates.

If he CHANGES his story and says that he DID contact candidates and had an advisory role in the selection of the new senator then he LIED. and he is a LIER and I will be convinced that he can not be trusted just like most people already think.

And that's exactly what Clinton was impeached for - lying under oath.

Imagine how crazy the dems will get if another of their presidents has that happen ...

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

And if it goes "south" and obama is implicated, what will you be saying then? Making up excuses to try and protect obama such as, "everyone else did it, too?"

No doubt it will once again come down to depending on what the meaning of is is ...

[edit on 4/23/2010 by centurion1211]

And what will you say when he is NOT implicated? Making up excuses?

That really was an unnecessary comment.

Typical LEO

No, not unnecessary with the number of obama sycophants we have on this site.

As for me, I will just let it go - IF obama turns out not to be implicated in any wrongdoing on THIS issue.

As much as I hate and am terrified by Obama's Politics, nobody is suggesting any impropriety by Obama. Talk about knee jerk reactions by Obama followers.

Blago is a sacrificial sheep to divert attention. Quid pro quo is the norm. Government offices are purchased all of the time.