Posted on 04/30/2010 11:03:41 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
I have to say I am truly stunned by this decision. The defense presented more than sufficient evidence to require Obama’s testimony. Blago has a right to call witnesses who have direct knowledge of relevant events that might clear him.
What’s the defense’s next move? Options?
Yep.
So now we’ve got Hawaii getting rid of their open records law only while Obama is president, and yet another judge unwilling to hold Obama accountable to the same laws as everybody else (this time not in an eligibility lawsuit).
Do you think the public (and “conservative” media) will begin to see a pattern here, or is that too much to ask?
Don’t worry. The truth wins in the end. Obama can’t keep juggling all of his lying schemes forever. He will get caught and his regime will go down.
Don’t worry. The truth wins in the end. Obama can’t keep juggling all of his lying schemes forever. He will get caught and his regime will go down.
Still, you can bet that during the presentment of the prosecution's case, Blago's defense will try to establish foundation for calling Obama. If he didn't hire idiots, I imagine they'll meet those foundational requirements, causing the judge to rethink his decision.
No, but he was impeached.
No, but he was impeached.
....POOR BLAGO.....
“Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago.”
Obama was never a professor, period!
I may be wrong, but I believe what Clinton was arguing for was that the entire case be suspended until he was out of office, the objection wasn’t simply to having to testify. The Supreme Court ruled that the case could continue, but the specific question of whether a sitting president can be compelled to give testimony in court was never touched on.
Not trying to be pedantic, and certainly not a Clinton-supported by any stretch. But I think the heart of this matter about the subpoena and a president did not actually get addressed back then.
Of course, the local court lacks jurisdiction.
It also would lack jurisdiction if a the body of a political opponent (or ally) were found hacked into pieces and stuffed in an oil drum.
Thanks OldDeckHand.
I can't decide which part of obama scares me most:the Chicago thug,the Marxist-Leninist thug, or the racist thug.
***Zagel said he might be willing to reconsider the issue***
during the course of the trial — which is set to begin June 3 — if Blagojevich’s lawyers submit more evidence that they need Obama’s testimony.
The ruling came on the same day that Blagojevich’s onetime chief of staff and running buddy Lon Monk pleaded guilty today for a second time to crimes tied to the Blagojevich administration.
Monk, 51, admitted to conspiring to solicit a bribe from a horse-racing businessman for a campaign contribution in exchange for getting a bill signed.
Monk is cooperating with investigators and pleaded guilty again after prosecutors filed new charges, crafted to deal with a possible future ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that experts say could strike down of the federal “honest services” fraud statute.
Monk has agreed to serve 24 months in prison.
After Blagojevich’s attorneys’ court appearance, a reporter asked one of his lawyers, Sheldon Sorosky, what it would have done for the president’s image if he had been made to testify.
“It would not hurt him at all,” Sorosky said. “It would help his image.”
*snip*
The Blagojevich defense team also wanted Obama to testify about his relationship with corrupt businessman Tony Rezko, who has been cooperating with authorities since his 2008 conviction on corruption charges involving state business under the Blagojevich administration.
“He said he would revisit the issue, should we present more evidence,” Sorosky said of the judge’s decision. “A lot depends on whether Tony Rezko testifies.”
The Chicago Sun-Times has reported that prosecutors have not reached a cooperation deal with Rezko, despite his cooperation.
~~~~
“...has reported that prosecutors have not reached a cooperation deal with Rezko, despite his cooperation.”
Could someone translate that ??
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
5.56mm
:’)
Obama was never a professor, period!
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Even the University of Chicago is FOS!
A “Lecturer” is a waterboy...a bench warmer in the NFL.
There was an article posted here last month that contained interviews with 2 professors at U of C. Both said his work was shoddy, and that he was lazy.
WHAT did Blagojevich, the Son-of-a-Bitch, ask Obama for, anyway? His Birth Certificate? LOL!
~~~
*snip*
But yesterday, when the official Obama party line, issued by the campaign and spoken Obama himself, was that there was no meeting and discussion between Obama and the Blago., then these two unfortunate -- preciously harmless -- factoids became explosive. Explosive because they exposed the lie. And so they had to die
*snip*
UPDATE VIA: Little Green Footballs Found "at the Illinois Government News Network, an announcement that the meeting took place and the Senate seat was discussed, with the headline:
Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat
UPDATE VIA THE COMMENTS: Another screengrab from another "disappeared" story from KHQA states Obama and the Governor meeting took place. This one is by KHQA's Alexis Hunt (Left).
UPDATE: In a vaguely worded "clarification" just issued, KHQA states:
KHQA TV wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last month on our website ConnectTristates.com.? The story, which discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk radio and on blog sites Wednesday.
The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place. Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on that date. -KHQA Clarification : News : KHQA[Emphasis added] Why this "clarification" has been issued is not cleared up by the item. The original item does not, as you can see, "suggest" that the meeting might/maybe happen. It says that "He's meeting" (He is meeting).... The only question that the clarification raises is about Ms. Sowers' professional ethics: Was she making it up then or is she making it up now?
Let's review what Ms. Sowers original story on November 5 tells us:
Who: Obama and the Governor
What: A meeting is is to be held.
Where: In Chicago.
When: The afternoon of November 5.
Why: To discuss the Senate replacement for President-Elect Obama.
Let's review what Ms. Hunt's original story on November 8 tells us:
Who: President-Elect Obama and the Governor
What: Had a meeting
Where: In Illinois.
When: "Earlier in the week"
Why: To discuss filling Obama's seat in the Senate.
Let's review what today's "clairification" tells us: Who: No person, just an amorphous thing called "KHQA" which "wishes to offer."
What: A story "which discussed the appointment of a replacement for..."
Where: Somewhere "on our website."
When: Sometime "last month."
Why: "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place." But perhaps this KHQA could ask Ms. Sowers who does (or did)...
Now recall the statement in today's "Clarification" that says, "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place."
Well, if it KHQA had read itself on the 8th it would have that knowledge. But since the KHQA story from the 8th has now been erased from the KHQA story database I guess you cold say "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place." But it would be more correct to say "KHQA no longer has any knowledge that any meeting ever took place. We did have that knowledge in our knowledge base but we dumped it."
Mark this as incident #56,967 of "It's not the crime, it's the coverup."
My own experience tells me that:
1) When a story containing inconvenient facts is suddenly erased from a news site with no warning, that story probably contains the truth.
2) When the removal is followed up quickly by a purging of the Google cache of the story, that story contained a very sensitive truth.
3) When, finally, a lawyeresque non-disclaimer disclaimer appears on the news site to explain the erasures, the original story is a stick of dynamite with a short fuse and the reporter is either posting her resume on Monster, or hiring security, or both.
Conclusion: Neither of the two brief stories from KHQA were important at the time they were filed. Both were just brief notices that what would normally be happening after Obama's win was happening. If you're going to be President, you have to resign the Senate and the Gov. gets to appoint your replacement. As President-elect you are going to want to have a say in that. And you will, to a point, get it.
Both stories are just commenting on Obama's calendar at the time. As such the source was most probably the campaign itself, or a person in the campaign close to local Chicago reporters. Just a couple of dull factoids that stated there was to be a meeting and yes there had been a meeting.
But yesterday, when the official Obama party line, issued by the campaign and spoken Obama himself, was that there was no meeting and discussion between Obama and the Blago., then these two unfortunate -- preciously harmless -- factoids became explosive. Explosive because they exposed the lie. And so they had to die.
I've written to both Sower and Hunt asking for comment. I'll report on any response. I doubt any response has been forthcoming. Both "reporters" have doubtless already gotten the word to be quiet "if you know what's good for you."
Posted by Vanderleun at December 10, 2008 5:16 PM
LINK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.