Patterico's Pontifications

6/30/2010

Obama and the Blogojevich Trial

Filed under: Government,Obama — DRJ @ 2:08 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

In a way, President Obama made an appearance in today’s Rod Blagojevich corruption trial:

According to the testimony of Chicago labor leader Tom Balanoff, he received a phone call the night before the 2008 presidential election from then-Sen. Obama saying that he thought his advisor Valerie Jarrett fit the criteria for United States Senator.

Balanoff recalled Obama saying in the phone call that he preferred Jarrett working for him at the White House but expressing that Jarrett “does want to be a senator.”

While Obama had said he would not endorse anyone outright for his soon-to-be vacant Senate seat, Balanoff testified today he told Obama that he would reach out to Gov. Blagojevich with that message.”

However, this is at odds with what Obama told the press when the scandal broke the following month:

“In December 2008 President-elect Obama said he was “appalled and disappointed” by the revelations that the Blagojevich was involved in a “pay-to-play” scheme to fill his Senate seat.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject,” Obama said then in remarks from Chicago, “I’m confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

Obama parses just like Clinton.

— DRJ

18 Responses to “Obama and the Blogojevich Trial”

  1. Didn’t O also say that he had never spoken, or met, directly with Blago, but then some sneak pulled photos out of the ether showing them together at a ball game of some sort, and at other functions?
    If the man wasn’t lying, you wouldn’t know he was even speaking.

    AD - RtR/OS! (209868)

  2. Think of the slimiest, most stupid, most corrupt criminal of all time. Then ask yourself, “Would he ever have anything to do with Blagojevich?”

    Blagojevich, and Miss Patty, and the Honorable Alderman Mell, are people you send your busboy to, to give them their envelope, for your liquor license. You do not negotiate with them for a Senate appointment, or Cabinet appointment, or ambassadorship.

    Obama is low in a lot of ways but he’s not that low.

    nk (db4a41)

  3. buck not stop here when
    Big O involved it just
    keep on truckin’, man

    ColonelHaiku (9cf017)

  4. “Obama is low in a lot of ways but he’s not that low.”

    So, either Balanoff is lying or Obama is lying. Door #1 or Door #2. One of them definitely is.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  5. “Who will rid me of that meddlesome priest”. Never know what people think will make the boss happy.

    nk (db4a41)

  6. I’ve never dealt with Blagojevich and Patty, but I’ve known Mell since I was nineteen. The apple does not fall far from the tree. They’re nobody a President of the United States would take seriously.

    nk (db4a41)

  7. Time Mag (surprisingly) reminds us of the role Greg Craig played in the very thorough internal White House investigation, which eventually concluded that Obama never talked to Blago or to any Blago representative about the senate seat.

    Openness! Transparancy! Oopsie.

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/30/faced-with-the-blagojevich-scandal-did-barack-obama-tell-the-whole-truth/?xid=rss-topstories

    elissa (30a415)

  8. Scorched Earth Defense BAY-BEE!!! Take as many with you as you can Rod!

    daleyrocks (1d0d98)

  9. nk – So why would Obama work as an official on Blago’s election campaign?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  10. If you would care to read even your own reporting correctly you would see there is no conflict here..nothing at odds at all between the two ….but who am I to try to point out how you twist things when its so obvious you have an agenda?

    and where is the transcript of phone conversations of Blag telling a contact the Obama group to go F***… themselves when they did not agree to any kind of payoff? No where to be found in your post because that bit of exculpatory evidence it doesnt fit within your witch hunt.

    The same crap occurred several year ago when Republican Dan Burton released a tape of a conversation in which a principle involved Whitewater discussed Hillery Clinton making it look like she was involved in that scandal.. but he cut the part where the official says she was not involved.

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  11. This is troll day?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  12. It seems that too many self-injected Parvo shots back in the late sixties leaves one unable to spell Hillary.

    Icy Texan (180a90)

  13. This is troll day?
    Comment by SPQR — 7/1/2010 @ 10:02 am

    The whole week has been filled with drive-by liars, previously-banned folks using anonymizers, and returning “favorites” pretending they now have credibility since they haven’t been caught lying recently.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  14. Stashiu3, I hope you did not interpret my comment as a criticism of your fine work?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. Not at all my friend. Just explaining that it’s not just today. It’s been rather tiring all week.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  16. Vevian’s back?
    Had that sex-change operation did you?
    Or, was it the brain transplant (you might ask for your money back)?

    AD - RtR/OS! (1ed577)

  17. –previously-banned folks using anonymizers–

    It absolutely amazes me that a few people (with apparently no lives to speak of) actually go to the extent of trying to hide who they are to get back in once they have been warned and banned from commenting. Is being a nasty, insulting, hateful pest to total strangers on a blog really worth all that time and effort? It just seems crazy, somehow, to make that ones hobby.

    elissa (586a03)

  18. Well, it certainly has been successful for Markos, and Randy Andy!

    AD - RtR/OS! (1ed577)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5851 secs.