38
   

Illinois Governor Arrested

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:47 am
@maporsche,
Conjecture on my part but I have a feeling that Valerie Jarrett's sudden disinterest in the seat was because they (the Obama camp) were cooperating with the FBI.

"Someone" expresses the sentiment that Obama thinks Jarrett would be a good candidate to replace Obama in the Senate.

Rod, et al want to know what's in it for them.

"Gratitude" is all.

Rod says no f'in way.

"Someone" let's the US Attorney's office know that Rod is looking for pay to play.

Jarrett pulls herself out of consideration.

Obama gives Jarrett a job at the White House.

I don't see any lies.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:49 am
@maporsche,
Apparently he mispoke.

Quote:
Just received this statement from the Obama camp:

STATEMENT FROM SENIOR ADVISOR DAVID AXELROD

I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.


source

I admit this looks like they are covering up but since Obama would have done nothing wrong if he did speak the governor, I can't see why he would put him self on the line and risk being branded a liar before he ever gets in office.
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:09 am
@revel,
How can you say that Obama would have done nothing wrong by speaking to the governer...if you have no idea what they were talking about?

All Blago did was speak to some people about the Senate seat right?


I'm not saying that Obama did anything wrong here, but as you said, it sure looks like they are covering something up.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:13 am
12/10/08
Huffington Post

President-elect Obama's efforts on behalf of an ethics bill in Illinois "indirectly" led to yesterday's dramatic arrest of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, reports the New York Times:

In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama's rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law's restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.

Tipped off to Mr. Blagojevich's efforts, federal agents obtained wiretaps for his phones and eventually overheard what they say was scheming by the governor to profit from his appointment of a successor to the United States Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Obama. One official whose name has long been mentioned in Chicago political circles as a potential successor is Mr. Jones, a machine politician who was viewed as a roadblock to ethics reform but is friendly with Mr. Obama.

0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:14 am
@joefromchicago,
I don't know if he was lying or not. Could be all kinds of explainations for the difference between his story and Axelrod's. I just wanted to point out how funny it is that y'all are quick to come up with reasons why Obama might not really be telling a lie after spending so many years ignoring explainations as to why Bush might not be lying about some of the stuff y'all claimed he was lying about. That was my only point.

Oh, and also that I am going to enjoy the next 4 years reading your excuses when the more radical of my conservative brethren accuse him of lying the same way y'all did Bush. Just saying, ya know.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:14 am
@maporsche,
hey map, can you take a look over here?
http://able2know.org/topic/60581-77#post-3500598
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:26 am
@CoastalRat,
Yeah CoastalRat, this is really what got the bee in my bonnet too. I hate Bush and I voted for Obama and I'm just disgusted at hearing the same excuses I used to lambast Bush supporters over now coming out of the mouth of Obama supporters.

I've only been involved in this game for the last 8 years or so (when I voted for Gore in 2000 it was my first time voting), and this shift in thinking is discouraging. Maybe it's just politics as usual, but disheartening nonetheless.
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:29 am
@maporsche,
You really need to learn how to vote properly.
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:33 am
@cjhsa,
Oh, you're not still mad that 80% of the state voted for the President-elect, are you?

That whole thing? Wasn't that way back in November?

You must be holding a grudge or something.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:33 am
I'm trying to sort through all of the Chicago Tribune's dealings with this.

From what I can gather they were heavily involved in a number of ways. They were being blackmailed by Rod, they were playing footsie with the US Attorney's office, they busted the story in the middle of the investigation forcing Fitzgerald to file his indictment sooner than he'd wanted to, and within 48 hours of that they filed for Chapter 11 protection.

At this point I think the Trib's actions are more questionable than Obama's.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:37 am
@maporsche,
I've come to expect it maporsche. People tend to think their guy can do no wrong while seeing shadows on the other guy and thinking he is a scumbag.

How's that Biblical saying go? Something along the lines of seeing the splinter in another's eye while ignoring the log in your own. Something like that.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:39 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

You really need to learn how to vote properly.


Laughing Yeah, the vast majority of folks really need to learn how to vote properly.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:40 am
@maporsche,
Apparently the gist of the accusations is that though Obama did have conversations about the seat he did not promise anything other than appreciation. If that turns out to be the case, then legally he didn't do anything other than lying about having contact with the governor over the open seat of the senate. I just can't see him trying to do something so stupid knowing it is all going to come out. The whole reason people like him (those that do) is because he represents a change in politics, if he starts in behaving the same as Bush that will really be a let down among his own supporters and I imagine he knows that so I can't see him doing so politically stupid when just admitting he had conversations with the governor but didn’t promise anything would not have had any repercussion among his key supporters.

Bush knew he could get away with the kind of misleading he was accused of because underneath it all, those that support him probably thought the policies justified the means and they also thought the left hyped a lot of it. On the other hand, if Obama is caught lying in this situation it will effect his standing in his base of supporters.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:43 am
@maporsche,
What excuses are you talking about?

As far as I can see there seem no indication of any kind that Obama or his team did anything wrong in any manner, so why would Obama supporters need to genrate excuses?

Please clear up your statement so the rest of us have some clue of what you are referning to.

You claim to had voted for the man so you are claiming I would asusme that unlike the brain dead right wingers here you are not just looking for a reason to attack Obama.
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:45 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

cjhsa wrote:

You really need to learn how to vote properly.


Laughing Yeah, the vast majority of folks really need to learn how to vote properly.


And then we should all learn how to detect and remove excess water from our salt tanks!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:47 am
@revel,
Who said he had conversations? It was widely reported that he thought Jarrett would be a good choice. Does that mean that he and the gov had a chat?

Axelrod said he "knew" they had spoken. Now he's recanted.

I honestly don't care he they had the conversation or not. But, as you said, there's no reason for him to lie about it so there's no reason to assume it ever took place.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:48 am
I was looking into why the power to select a replacement senator is solely in the hands of a governor and found this article.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate-scandal10-2008dec10,0,3736740.story

Quote:
In the old days, buying a Senate seat was not unusual
The allegations against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich are echoes of history.

By David G. Savage
December 10, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- Reforms to end the buying of Senate seats by giving governors the power to fill vacant posts set the stage for the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.

The reforms nearly a century ago were sparked by another Illinois scandal and led to a change in the U.S. Constitution.




The "blond boss" of Chicago, William Lorimer, was ousted from the Senate in 1912 after it was found that bribes had been paid to Illinois state legislators to get him the seat.

In the late 19th century, it was commonly said that wealthy men could buy a seat in the Senate by spreading money among the state legislators, who, under the nation's Constitution, had the task of choosing U.S. senators. The idea had been that elected lawmakers, rather than ordinary people, could be trusted to make a wise selection.


The Chicago case played a prominent role in the nation's decision to amend the Constitution and allow the state's voters to elect their senators. It was a solution that seems to have worked for 95 years.

Lorimer, an immigrant from England and a dapper and popular politician, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1895 when he was 33. In 1909, after a long deadlock in the Illinois Legislature, Lorimer was chosen to represent the state in the U.S. Senate.

But a year later, the Chicago Tribune reported on allegations that bribes had been paid to secure Lorimer's seat, including an admission by a state assemblyman that he had received $1,000.

Lorimer vehemently denied the charges and called for a Senate investigation. He was cleared, but a year later the Progressive Movement picked up the cause and the Senate reversed itself. Lorimer was ousted from the Senate by a 55-28 vote.

"The Lorimer case was the poster child for what was wrong with the old system," Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian, said Tuesday. "The senators were bombarded with newspaper editorials, and the feeling at the time was the best solution was to turn this over to the people."

This sentiment had been building for decades. Between 1866 and 1906, six bribery cases were brought before the Senate.

In the Western states, miners who achieved instant wealth sometimes aspired to higher office. In 1899, two rival mining company owners -- W.G. Conrad and William Clark --paid more than $1 million in bribes in hopes of obtaining a U.S. Senate seat representing Montana, according to Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University.

The contest lasted through 17 ballots before a winner could be decided, and the two candidates had to pay up before each day's ballot to prevent their supporters from switching sides, she said.

Clark eventually won, but the U.S. Senate refused to seat him and the spot was vacant for two years.

Lorimer, however, was the last senator removed for corruption involving a state legislature. In 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, saying that the two senators from each state shall "be elected by the people."

This power-to-the-people amendment was a triumph for the Progressives, but its second clause said, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Since then, governors have filled Senate seats "when vacancies happen" by making appointments or by calling for special elections. Legal experts said Tuesday that they were not aware of previous allegations that governors had sought bribes in exchange for such an appointment.

"We are not aware of anything that resembles this," Ritchie said.

In recent decades, there have been occasional allegations that money and promised favors may have prompted some candidates for the Senate to drop out of the race. In 1986, Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Calif.) and an aide were accused of trying to lure state Sen. Ed Davis to drop his bid for the Senate by offering to help pay off his campaign debts. Those charges were dismissed before the matter went to trial.

A Boston College expert who studies public corruption said it is not unusual for public officials to choose friends or associates when making appointments. "We expect our public officials to appoint people who are close to them. We expect people to give them campaign contributions," said George Brown, a law professor. "It is normally a gray area.

"The two things that are unusual about this case," he said, referring to Blagojevich, "are one, the high level of the official, and two, the apparent brazenness and openness of the alleged incident."

Schiller of Brown University recalled the Montana mining operator who paid lavish bribes to win a Senate seat. "If William Clark woke this morning and saw the newspaper, he would have said, 'Of course, that's how it works'," she said.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:53 am
@revel,
I think you're wrong if you think that Obama supporters don't also think the policies justify the means.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:53 am
@JPB,
Quote:
Who said he had conversations? It was widely reported that he thought Jarrett would be a good choice. Does that mean that he and the gov had a chat?

Axelrod said he "knew" they had spoken.


You answered your own question, but on the whole I agree except if it turns out that Axelord is lying now rather than mispeaking before. He would be really stupid to lie now that Blagojevich has been arrested and there are tapes from the FBI to prove it one way or another.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:58 am
@maporsche,
What policies, appointing a specific someone in the senate seat. No speaking as one Obama supporters that policy would not justify lying and would just prove Obama is no better than Bush or even Clinton. I don’t' believe it.

The Bush policies I was referring to was things like the Iraq war, wiretapping... in which most republicans thought was for the good of country and probably also thought the media and the left hyped a good deal of any damaging evidence
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 03:14:47