Rahm wiretapped 21 times

And a very merry xmas to you too...

barfo

 

So the Nixonian "plausible deniability" thing is what Obama's ethics is about?

The news reports about the wiretaps, and certainly the photos that are in the public record, show they're lying after the fact, and their story's constantly changing.

 

Yes:

Not...accused...of....wrongdoing.

barfo

 

I don't even know what you mean by that. You are claiming Obama said he'd never met/spoken to/etc. Blago.
What you are claiming is not true.

Only if Obama claimed he'd never met the gov. And he didn't claim that.

barfo

 

My sense here, Denny, is that you are pulling my leg with this argument. Your standards of evidence and argument in this thread seem to be rather, um, relaxed. But if you are serious about this, you need to produce the quote that's at the center of your argument, a quote that can be proven false by a picture of Obama and Blago.

One thing I will agree with is that "a source with the Obama camp" was lying or ignorant when s/he said that Rahm had not spoken directly to Blago. But if that's all there is, then it isn't much, and it doesn't have anything to do with photos of Obama.

barfo

 

Plausible deniability is sending your minions to do the work you want to deny.

Obama flatly denied he had any contacts with Blago all the while his staff was working on his behalf with Blago for a political favor. We can see the quid, the pro quo may have come later (almost always does with ANY politician).

Looks foolish to denying contact and have a photo of yourself with Blago taken after you said you hadn't had any contact. Then you send your minions out there to lie on your behalf to try and bury it.

The bottom line is Blago is radioactive - nobody wants to be anywhere near him or get sick with the radiation sickness (guilt by association at best).

Surely you can see that Obama could have come out and told the truth and the story would be about Blago getting impeached and Obama's name and his staffers cleared. "Of course I knew and had contacts with Blagovech and so did Rahm, we're democrats from Illinois and he's the governor there, and we proposed a handful of people who we'd like to see fill my vacant seat in the senate and Rahm's in the house." End of story! Instead, it's "I never had sex with that wom..." I mean, "I never had contact with the guy," and Rahm "never had contact with them since the election." (both are lies).

 

Guilt by association is exactly what you are trying to cook up here.

Let's see the links for those quotes.

barfo

 

So you think that Blago was lying when he said that Obama didn't offer anything other than appreciation, and so fuck him? Maybe Blago knew he was being wiretapped and wanted to rescue Obama's reputation while cooking his own goose?

Well, that doesn't make much sense.

Maybe you think Obama told Blago that he wouldn't do him any favors if Blago picked who Obama wanted, but Obama actually secretly was planning to do Blago a favor?

That doesn't make much sense either.

barfo

 

Guilt by lying is what I'm seeing here.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denver-News-Examiner~y2008m12d17-Obamas-Blagojevich-problem

December 17, 8:11 PM

When the arrest of Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges was first announced, Barack Obama stated in no uncertain terms that neither he, nor his transition team had had any communication with the governor regarding the filling of the Senate seat which Obama vacated. In fact, when news broke that in an earlier interview, senior Obama advisor David Axelrod stated such conversations did take place, the Obama camp issued a statement that Mr. Axelrod had mis-spoke and repeated the claim that no conversations took place.

 

Direct quote:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/questions-arise.html

"Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney's office today," said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. "But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time."

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

 

How about a primary source. If Obama said it, it is surely quoted or on tape somewhere.

But even if what is written there is literally correct, there's nothing there that a picture of the two of them together would prove or disprove.

barfo

 

It sure doesn't look good. He flatly denied he or his staff had any contact with Blago yet there's photos of him with Blago. I suppose they talked about the White Sox. On the other hand, getting caught in a few lies right out of the gate (and before inauguration even) isn't a particularly good sign of things to come or what I'd hoped for from Obama. I thought "change" might mean "honest politics" but it's the same ol' same ol'.

 

Ah, at last some actual quotes. They seem to contradict what your secondary source wrote, but no matter.

It is true that Obama said he 'had no contact with the governor'. However, I think a reasonable person would assume that he meant "about this matter", not "ever". So a picture of the two of them together proves nothing.

If it turns out that Obama did personally contact the gov about his replacement, then you can indeed call him a liar. He didn't say that Rahm hadn't contacted the gov - although obviously if he knew that Rahm had, he's being a bit less than transparent, but not actually lying.

As for Axelrod, either Obama did personally contact the gov or he didn't. If he did, then Obama's a liar and Axelrod was telling the truth. If he didn't, then Axelrod was wrong (or lying, but it isn't clear why he'd lie).

But y'know, this still doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless you can show that Obama talked to the governor about it. If you can show that, then you've caught him in a fairly clear (if trivial) lie. If not, all you've got is guilt by association. Which doesn't work too well since Blago himself said on tape that Obama's people wouldn't play ball with him.

barfo

 

What part of "we were not" in his quote means "maybe Rahm was, but I didn't know about it or sanction it" ?

The bottom line is that this would have ceased to be an issue if they leveled with us from the first moment the press got wind of it. Instead, they denied, changed their story (Axelrod), instituted a dubious (partisan/sycophantic) internal investigation, and the truth is coming out in drips proving the lies were made.

I called it early on, and I still think Rahm is toast. At least Obama can come out looking like Rahm went behind his back and without his knowledge in opposition to his policy of not interfering with the decision about his successor.

The "caught on tape" thing is funny for two reasons. First, you demand to see quotes and won't accept that someone published what was leaked to them about the content of those tapes. Second, it raises a fairly obvious question: why would Blago complain like he did if it wasn't made clear to the Obama people that some sort of bribe was expected? The real question is why the Obama people didn't go right to the authorities and report that they were asked to bribe a public official?

 

That would be hard to do, given that the report says that Rahm had Obama's approval to pass the list of candidates to Blago. Maybe Rahm is going to get thrown under the bus, but the report certainly doesn't lay the groundwork for that.

Well, there is a big difference between a public statement from Obama and an anonymous claim published in a gossip column. One is verifiable. The other is not.

That can be the question if you want. Maybe Blago's people were a little too subtle and Obama's people didn't get the hint, or they didn't think it was an explicit demand for a bribe. Or maybe, if Chicago politics is as corrupt as you say, they ignored it as the usual background noise.

barfo

 

I'm not the only one asking those questions, and it isn't republicans asking the questions. It's the press. From that same ABC news link:

There's more in the ABC News story that speaks to judgment, one of the key things Obama ran on:

 

Here's how I'd guess it went down:

Given that Blago's deputy approached Obama via a non-official person (Whittaker) about an official matter, Obama probably could guess what was on his mind - that he wanted to make some sort of a deal. Obama's response via Whittaker was a clear "no". So Blago had his answer, without actually offering a bribe. The medium - Whittaker - is the message.

That's just my speculation, of course.

barfo

 

I find the report by Obama's general WH counsel to be, to be dubious. I find testimony by Whitaker to be dubious, since it is not under oath nor taken by a disinterested 3rd party. I find testimony by Rahm to be most dubious of all.

But if "nobody has the authority to speak for the president elect" but Rahm did, then "At least Obama can come out looking like Rahm went behind his back and without his knowledge in opposition to his policy of not interfering with the decision about his successor." is true. Good idea to get it in the report to set it up.

 

Of course you do. But you find an anonymous "rumble" in a gossip column to be completely believable.

Have you read the report? It says quite the opposite:

barfo