Thursday, April 22, 2010

Gee, it's a shame that PDF software is so complicated: Redaction boo-boo reveals Blago's secret dealings with President Obama

NBC Chicago reports that someone made a serious boo-boo in the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod "Blago" Blagojevich.


One of the key elements of the Blago trial revolves around the negotiations between the disgraced ex-Gov and the White House over the empty Obama Senate seat.*. In fact, Blago's attorneys have asked for a trial subpoena to compel President Obama's testimony.

That motion was supposed to be mostly redacted, but someone flubbed PDF 101. In fact, the complete document was fully visible if the text was selected, copied and then pasted into a fresh document. The error was first discovered by Capitol Fax.

1. Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster Tony Rezko

Blagojevich's lawyers allege that Rezko admitted breaking the law by contributing "a large sum of cash" to a public official. Blagojevich's attorneys say that public official is Obama. Obama said that Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser in favor of favorable legislative action. But the point may be moot: regardless of Obama talking/not talking to Rezko, Blagojevich's attorneys say that Obama refused the request regardless.

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.

2. Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

Blagojevich's defense team basically alleges that Obama told a certain labor union official that he (Obama) would support Valerie Jarrett's candidacy for the Senate seat. Jarrett, referred to as "Senate Candidate B", is now a senior advisor to the president.

Redacted portion: Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).

Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official] called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).

3. 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).

4. Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates

Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich. John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as Blagojevich's press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the Obama transition team.”

5. Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat

Redacted portion: President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator.

[President’s Chief of Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion.

6. Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

Redacted portion: President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008 in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008 continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.

Of course, virtually all of these assertions contradict the White House accounts. Remember this New York Times headline, which was published December 11, 2008?

I'll echo what the libs said during the Nixon era: it's not the crime, baby, it's the cover-up!

As an aside, the "union president" described herein is almost certainly SEIU president Andy Stern. Which may explain why Stern resigned in a hurry only days ago and blew the joint.

Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, Andy.


Blago Reference:
And on the fifth day, subpoenas were served related to Obama's senior staff
RED ALERT: Chicago Tribune article referenced Obama-Blago discussions on Senate Seat!
Even cached articles on Obama-Blago Senate meetings go AWOL
"[Obama] can get Blagojevich's wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming [a] pick to the Senate"
Obama, Rezko, Blagojevich: Illinois Governor Arrested



6 comments:

Just A Guy said...

Competency has never been the Empty Suit in Chief's strong suit.

Shayne said...

It wouldn't matter if he raped a 7 year old boy on the White House lawn. Unless the GOP regains the Senate and House, none of this will ever be brought to light. Certainly not by the MSM.

Now, had ths been Bush, he would have been forced to resign, and quite possibly, kill himself.

DHarman said...

Nice work Mr. Ross!

Anonymous said...

What makes you think it was a "flub"?

suek said...

>>What makes you think it was a "flub"?>>

Hmmm. Whether or not it was a "flub", does it's publication mean that for some reason it now cannot be entered into evidence?

If it cannot...that sure would be reason enough to suspect the possibility of a deliberate "flub", I think...

arshad said...

Hi its really very nice postings i enjoyed a lot to visit..
Mobiles
Mobiles Price
Handset Prices

o