So much for Obama's "Open Government"

[foxpaws]

We are claiming, WITH PROOF, that Obama lied to the american people when he said he had no contact with Blago.

OK - I just had to look - I can't make heads or tails of the 'lie' in question - you never have stated it in any of your posts Shag. So, I am going with the thing that Bryan has in post #5

I am also aware of your interest in the matter of the Illinois Senate appointment. Let me say that I was as appalled as anyone by the revelations earlier this week. I have never spoken with the Governor on this subject.

So, is the lie that Obama stated he didn't have any contact with the governor regarding his replacement?

He could have shook Blago's hand in a meeting - stood by him for a photo op - those are of course forms of 'contact'. But the statement specifically addressed contact regarding Obama's replacement in the Senate.

As I said, I really haven't paid a whole lot of attention to this - accusations fly hot and heavy usually in cases like this, until things settle down and the 'facts' are presented by the law enforcement agencies involved. But, since you stated it was an blatantly impeachable offense I really needed to dig a bit deeper... (oh, the stubborn fool statement probably had something to do with it too )

I checked your links and they do seem to be dead ends. Conspiracy again? Maybe that explains the 'we' I bolded in your quote above shag. Who exactly are 'we' shag?

Back to the links... The first link is to some story that the governor and Obama were to meet on budget concerns on Dec 1& 2. Obama met with the National Governors' Association (a huge group of governors) to discuss monetary concerns on December 2. Blago was at this 2 day meeting, and the photo you posted is from this meeting - Obama was leaving the meeting after a short speech, and he stopped to shake hands with his state's governor. You can see that Obama is going down a long line of governors shaking hands - sort of a reception line. I guess, you could call this contact - but it certainly didn't have anything to do with discussing his senate seat vacancy. Obama just addressed the group as a whole, none of the governors individually. Heck Sarah Palin was there too...

Your World Net story - the second link - was overridden by a different story later that day that reported that the sources they used were retracted.

The third link refers to the KHQA story - see below...

Your next link is The Office of the Governor's press release, which says nothing of a meeting. It appears to be a dead end. But, maybe you can point to the part that talks about a meeting Shag.

The 5th link is another KHQA story, later in the week - see next paragraph

The one source that seems to have actually 'reported' an alleged meeting between Blago and Obama to discuss candidates for Obama's vacated seat is KHQA TV. KHQA has retracted it's story...

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.

And in fact was repudiated the next day by the the Chicago SunTimes, which was reporting on the news conference KHQA references in their story. "Saying he had no favorite candidate yet, Blagojevich said he has not spoken to Obama about the matter but would give "a great deal of weight" to the recommendations the president-elect might make."

Remember the 5th is the day after the election - Obama didn't meet with anyone that day, he was with his family after his big victory (and a late night) - the press was waiting for him to emerge and no one else reported a meeting with Obama and Blago. I don't think a meeting with the governor would have gone unnoticed by the rest of the press core that was camped out at Obama's doorstep.

So, I really don't want to be stubborn, or a fool - but I really would like to see the 'lie'. Obama stated he had no contact with Blago regarding the senate seat... Maybe the quote Bryan stated is wrong - but I did find it, as quoted, in a press conference that Obama gave on 12/11. I am just guessing here. Is your quote different shag?

And certainly in the next few days other things could (and probably will) come out about this case. Like I said, I like to wait and see what develops before jumping to conclusions, especially in ongoing investigations.

 

[Joeychgo]

What ever happened to it being patriotic to protest?

There is a difference between protesting and trying to twist any little thing into a scandal. There is also a difference between protesting and being gleeful at the slightest hint of a scandal.

That talking point you are repeating here is based in a blatant double standard (though I do not think it is necessarily a double standard on your part).

How about you stop bitching and accept that humble pie you have to eat now.

No, no double standard with me, nor a talking point. I simply believe we shouldnt purposely invent reasons to bring down a new president. I see a few of the posters here only too happy to twist, assume and speculate events in order to further their own agenda. The facts right now are that there are no facts pertaining to Obama and Blagojevich and the "sale of the senate seat". So let's not start the Obama impeachment hearings just yet.

 

[MonsterMark]

So let's not start the Obama impeachment hearings just yet.

I can only hope there are no sharp objects in your house should the SCOTUS decide to hear the case on Monday.

 

[shagdrum]

This photo is from the National Governors Association on December 2nd, 2008.

Obama said this on Tuesday December 9th, 2008,“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”

Here is a nice little photo taken from Blagojevich’s official newsletter (here is the, unsuprisingly dead link to the newsletter) dated 11/12/08, eight days after the election. The topic of the story? The Senate succession:

Obama said this on Tuesday December 9th, 2008,“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.”

OK - I just had to look - I can't make heads or tails of the 'lie' in question - you never have stated it in any of your posts Shag. So, I am going with the thing that Bryan has in post #5

Here is the original comment where Obama claims that he, "had no contact with the governor or his office. So, I was not aware of what was happening." He didn't temper that with anything about meeting specifically with Blago about Senate appointments.

As this Slate article points out:

The second part of Obama's answer was so vague as to be nearly meaningless. "I was not aware of what was happening" can mean anything you want it to. It can mean you weren't aware of anything relating to the Senate seat, or that you weren't aware the governor was trying to sell the Senate seat, or that you weren't aware the governor was under federal investigation for trying to sell the Senate seat. Or it could mean you were not aware that Blagojevich was using hairspray (or not, as the case may be)​

Then there is Axelrod's comment (and he now claims he "misspoke").

Blago was quoted in this article before the election on potential Senate successors to Barack Obama that, "We have had some discussions about a process which we’ll share … if all goes well."

Then there is the fact that Obama's transition team (likely Rahm Emanuel) did have contact with Blago.

I checked your links and they do seem to be dead ends.

You are spinning and you know it. They are not dead ends simply because they were removed or "retracted". The fact that they were retracted doesn't make them untrue. It is very possible that they are covering for Obama (as the MSM did all through the election), or are simply the bowing the thug political pressures brought on to them by the the Obama team (or it's supporters in Chicago). To say they are "dead ends" is to ignore both those very realistic possibilities.

Your World Net story - the second link - was overridden by a different story later that day that reported that the sources they used were retracted.

It was not "overridden". There is nothing in the link you cite that "overrides" anything. It simply says the sources they used retracted their articles and printed the reasons for it.

KHQA had two stories that talk about the meeting on November 5th; one saying it was scheduled to happen, and one saying it did happen. It wasn't until it became detramental to Obama if the meeting took place that they retracted it. But they felt the story was strong enough to go to press with in both instances, and both stories were written by different authors.

Something had to cause that sudden change in trust in the credibility of their sources. And the timing seems rather interesting for them to pull the story. That is definately a red flag in their pulling of the story. You would be a gullible fool, or willingly delusional to take them at their word on their reasoning for pulling it, given the circumstances...

You also have the Chicago Tribune story from before the election where Blago says, "We [Obama and Blago] have had some discussions about a process [concerning potential Senate successors] which we’ll share … if all goes well."

That is four independant sources (KHQA had two different stories on two different dates by two different authors) claiming that Obama and Blago met and discussed, specifically the senate seat is some fashion.

So when he claims he had no contact with Blago concerning the senate seat, it is questionable at best, and the evidenciary burden of proof is on him. The fact that all these sources are; either tied to Obama, arguable favorable to Obama, and/or in Chicago, so likely able to be bullied through thug politics, should send up red flags in any objective person's mind.

Either way, Obama's original quote, claiming he had no contact with Blago is a proven lie, given nothing more then the pictures above.

So, it is a FACT that Obama lied about having contact with Blago, and is either lying, or being deceitful concerning his (and his transition team's) contact with Blago concerning the senate seat.

There is no question that lying and/or being decietful to the public is a betrayal of the public trust (except in certian specific circumstances). There is also no question that a betrayal of the public trust is an impeachable offense.

Here is an interesting timeline of events concerning this, "as revealed in the complaint and press reports".

 

[shagdrum]

There is a difference between protesting and trying to twist any little thing into a scandal. There is also a difference between protesting and being gleeful at the slightest hint of a scandal.

Trying to twist any little thing into a scandal and being gleeful at the slightest hint of a scandal have been what the left have been doing to Bush for the past 8 years!!!!!

And you have been buying into most all of their smear attempts!!!

In contrast, we have been pointing out that Obama has these ties that no one wants to look at. When they start blowing up in his face and he tries to lie about it and cover it up, when call him on it.

There is no twisting by the right going on here. Where has anyone on this board said that Obama was a part of this scheme? Cite specifics, please

No, no double standard with me, nor a talking point.

Well, it is a talking point I have heard from the left on this...

It appears you may very well have a double standard given the first comment of your's in this post that I responded to. You just don't seem to have one in saying that Obama should be given a chance first.

But in "trying to twist any little thing into a scandal" and "being gleeful at the slightest hint of a scandal", you have wholeheartedly went along with, and/or engaged in both those things in regards to Bush.

I simply believe we shouldnt purposely invent reasons to bring down a new president, unless he is George W. Bush.

There. Corrected it for ya.

I see a few of the posters here only too happy to twist, assume and speculate events in order to further their own agenda.

Who? I have yet to see one. It only seems you are distorting their claims...

The facts right now are that there are no facts pertaining to Obama and Blagojevich and the "sale of the senate seat". So let's not start the Obama impeachment hearings just yet.

Go read my previous post here (#29). There are plenty of facts pertaining to it. However, there are no fact saying he had any part in the scheme.

But, it is a FACT (which I pointed out, already) that Obama has already lied and mislead the American people on this. That is betrayal of the public trust, which is an impeachable offense.

I am not calling for his impeachment, I don't think you could impeach him because he hasn't taken office yet. But I am pointing out that he did commit an offense that is considered impeachable if you are in a position to be impeached.

Weather or not he had any part in the scheme is irrelevant to the claim of betrayal of public trust.

 

[Joeychgo]

I can only hope there are no sharp objects in your house should the SCOTUS decide to hear the case on Monday.

I have plenty. I'm not worried. They can hear the case all they want. It'll be irrelevant Monday anyway after the electoral college vote.

 

[MonsterMark]

It'll be irrelevant Monday anyway after the electoral college vote.

And why is that?

I thought the inauguration was scheduled for Jan 20, 2009?

 

[foxpaws]

Either way, Obama's original quote, claiming he had no contact with Blago is a proven lie, given nothing more then the pictures above.

Oh, the quote you use shag is in answer to a question that specifically asked about the 'selling of the senate seat...' he didn't need to 'temper it', it was in response to a specific question. So, it wasn't about general contact, but a specific contact.

"Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?" asked a reporter, the Wall Street's Journal Jonathan Weisman.

"I had no contact with the Governor or his office," Obama said, "and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening."

Obviously Obama is answering that he had no contact with the governor or office regarding the 'selling' of the senate seat.

I can see if you didn't know that the question before the response (your quote) that it would look like Obama could be referring to 'contact in general'. But it is obvious that when you see the question that was asked, you can see that Obama's response was just in reference to the senate seat.

And we will see if indeed the two have had conversations regarding the senate seat - the FBI has been tracking this guy forever regarding other infractions - so, I am sure it will all come out...

Well, shag - since your photos are from your photobucket account... I can't see the reference to the 2nd one... I did explain the first one - it is an AP photo from the Governor's meeting in Philly... Here is the AP photo caption...
President-elect Barack Obama, right, greets Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, left, at the Bipartisan meeting of the National Governor’s Association at Congress Hall, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008 in Philadelphia, Pa. Looking on are Gov. of Indiana., Mitch Daniels, left center, and Gov. of Ohio, Ted Strickland, right center.

Once again, they didn't discuss the seat, they didn't discuss anything. It was after a speech, taken at the reception line.

Are you building your impeachment case on the quote 'I have had no contact with the governor'? Well, that would be really silly - if you go just by the statement you would have to go back at least the 6 years that Blago has been governor. With Obama as one of the other strong Democrats in the state there had to be numerous times the men have met at official functions - the whole hand shaking thing - The quote you use was in answer to a specific question - have they discussed Obama's replacement in the senate?

Patience usually wins the race shag... We will see if he indeed lied about having any contact with Blago regarding the Senate seat.

And, the fact the TV station actually stated a retraction does mean a lot - media really hates to retract, and if they do, it usually is because they have nothing to back their story. Since Obama was at home the day after the election - it was probably pretty easy for everyone to question their story.

Personally Shag, I didn't think you would be caught up in some sort of 'impeach him now' frenzy, I thought you would think things through. Obviously the men have had 'contact' in the past.- Obama knows that, the world knows that. Here is a photo of the two men in 2005 - there have to be hundreds of these. The quote really is reference to just the senate seat discussion, not if they have shaken hands at a governor's meeting.

 

[MonsterMark]

Those darn evil republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2M1...ww.americasright.com/&feature=player_embedded

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, the quote you use shag is in answer to a question that specifically asked about the 'selling of the senate seat...' he didn't need to 'temper it', it was in response to a specific question. So, it wasn't about general contact, but a specific contact.

Obama didn't phrase it as an answer to that question. Read the question and the response, they are two separate statements. Obama is using typical lawyer tricks to be able to redefine that statement as he sees fit on a later date.

He is inherently being decietful.

He may have been asked that question, but he was clearly not specifically answering it.

Here is what Obama was asked:

Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?" ​

Here was his response:

I had no contact with the Governor or his office, and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening​

The question was very specific (at least with regards to the senate seat; it never said "who" he was or was not in contact with) and he was responding to it very broadly. He was intentionally leaving room for pausible deniability on his part at a later date, if necessary.

His statement is broad and open to interpretation, however that doesn't mean you get to interpret it as you want (as I know you like to do). He said a very broad statement, so you should look at it in a very broad sense. In that sense, his is lying because he did have contact with Blago.

Even if you actively and dishonestly try to interpret it in the best light for Obama (as you are doing), then he is still being deceitful in two way. First, he is muddying the waters by making it unclear weather he ment that he didn't have contact at all or specifically with regards to the Senate seat. Second, Blago clearly was under the impression that he and Obama had a "procedure" for picking the appointee out before the election was finished. So Blago had some for of contact with Obama, weather it be directly or indirectly through intermediaries, which Obama doesn't make clear, further muddying the waters.

We do no that Emanuel (as a representative of the Obama transition team) had contact with Blago and his office as well. So for Obama to claim that he had no contact with Blago regarding the senate seat is a lie under this interpretation as well, because he still had indirect contact with Blago, which still qualifies as contact.

So, under any interpretation of his phrase, Obama is lying in some fashion and being decietful.

And we will see if indeed the two have had conversations regarding the senate seat - the FBI has been tracking this guy forever regarding other infractions - so, I am sure it will all come out...

They don't need to have direct conversations; communication through intermediaries still counts as contact.

Obama even made that argument in the debates during the general election when he tried to defend his earlier statement about having presidential communications with rouge nations (specifically Iran).

And, the fact the TV station actually stated a retraction does mean a lot - media really hates to retract, and if they do, it usually is because they have nothing to back their story. Since Obama was at home the day after the election - it was probably pretty easy for everyone to question their story.

It only means anything if you can rule out other possibilities that seem at least as likely in the given circumstances.

The timing of the retraction alone should send up a red flag. Why didn't they retract the story the day before this scandal broke? What new information did they get that caused them to retract the story.

Personally Shag, I didn't think you would be caught up in some sort of 'impeach him now' frenzy, I thought you would think things through.

Have I ever called for Obama to be impeached with regards to this? You are mischaracterizing my position.

I have only ever said that Obama, in this instance committed a betray of the public trust by lying to and being decietful with the American public. That offense is an impeachable offense, or would-be impeachable offense if he were in office. That is as far as I have taken it.

However I have never called for his impeachment called for his impeachment on this. In fact, I said the exact opposite in post #30 of this very thread.

 

[foxpaws]

Obama didn't phrase it as an answer to that question. Read the question and the response, they are two separate statements. Obama is using typical lawyer tricks to be able to redefine that statement as he sees fit on a later date.

He was obviously specifically answering the question - in fact, right before the answer he said "Hold on, hold on a second guys - I will just answer this one question. I had no...."
I got that from your tv link shag.

The question was very specific (at least with regards to the senate seat; it never said "who" he was or was not in contact with) and he was responding to it very broadly. He was intentionally leaving room for pausible deniability on his part at a later date, if necessary.

His answer is not broad - he is answering very much in the negative - "I had no contact with the Governor or his office, and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening" - it doesn't get much more specific than that. And it very much says "who". How much more specific do you need to get than I and the Governor? And it is (no matter what you say) a specific answer to a specific question.

And Obama would have known that less that 2 weeks before he made this statement he shook Blago's hand at the Governor's meeting - he is a lawyer, he is a smart man. He wouldn't of ever stated he 'had no contact' to a general question - such as 'have you seen the governor in the last 2 years' when obviously over the years he has had plenty of contact with the governor of the state which he represents. He once again is answering a very specific question.

First, he is muddying the waters by making it unclear weather he ment that he didn't have contact at all or specifically with regards to the Senate seat.

He is not muddying anything - he answered a very strong 'I had NO contact... I was NOT aware of what was happening' to the question "Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?" There wasn't any 'fuzzy' "I am not able to answer your question at this time". He is very clear.

The only damning thing Obama did was LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! That is not speculation, it is a provable (and proven) FACT!!! Lying to the American people (unless the circumstances are unique) is a blatant betrayal of the public trust and an impeachable offense, were he in office.

So, indeed you didn't call for his impeachment - you just claimed that the blatant betrayal of the public trust was an impeachable offense.

So, where is the lie? There isn't one. He answered a question truthfully, without resorting to running around the issue. I actually applaud the man for not hiding behind the whole 'ongoing investigation, can't discuss' hyperbole. He was asked the question, he answered it. No I did not have contact.

Now, if it comes out that he did have contact with Blago regarding the senate seat, you will have a winning argument. But, until the investigation is complete, and the evidence is presented, you should just wait shag - this is something that will come out.

The timing of the retraction alone should send up a red flag. Why didn't they retract the story the day before this scandal broke? What new information did they get that caused them to retract the story.

The timing is because suddenly all these bloggers were quoting the story (as stated in the retraction). The story had been ignored up until that point and not questioned. I am sure that they were getting phone calls galore, wanting details - from other news agencies that wanted to put this on the news. If they were right, and had evidence to back their claim of the meeting they would be all over this. What a scoop - they would be column 1, first 5 minutes, cover material on every news source in America. What news agency wouldn't want that. Especially some small local TV station. The scoop of the decade. Believe me, if they had the proof they would have never retracted this story, but they would have had it back on the top of the news.