Good, But Not Perfect » « Corrupt to the Bone 


Legal Masturbation
December 16th 2008 Corruption, Crime, Democrats

Obama clears himself and staff in Blagojevich case - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington and Chicago — Barack Obama said Monday that an internal investigation had found his staff had no inappropriate conversations with Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich over who would succeed the president-elect in the Senate.

“I have thoroughly investigated myself, and the climax is that I am utterly without any blame whatsoever in this scandal.”

Submit to Stumbled Upon!
-Bill Quick







Comments on this post:

  • J.S. Bridges
    December 16th, 2008 | #1

    Whew, what a relief!

    Just imagine the distress it might have caused, had he found it necessary to report that he did, in fact, know of or even personally engage in any such “inappropriate conversation(s).”

    We shall doubtless all sleep much better tonite…

  • CayleyGraph
    December 16th, 2008 | #2

    I’m broadcasting my naïveté again, but…

    What would Obama have done wrong, exactly? As far as I can tell, the crime he would have committed would have been for Blagojevich to tell him he was going to sell his old Senate seat, and then not do anything about it. I wouldn’t expect Blagojevich to tell this to people on the Obama team, since they’re probably not likely buyers. I haven’t heard that Blagojevich was a particularly clever individual, but that’s not enough to guarantee wrongdoing on Obama’s part.

    I worry that people who should take up an antagonizing role against Obama will get caught up with nasty things that occur around him, letting these drown out the nasty things he will actually be responsible for. I think that, when people make their case about not liking Obama to people who haven’t committed one way or the other, bringing up scandals that he was near but uninvolved in (or unproved to be involved in) will cause people to think, “Oh, they’re just looking for reasons to hate him,” and then ignore the rest of your argument. Just like that run-on sentence will discourage you from taking me seriously.

    Granted, Obama probably should have been involved in the process enough to know about the sale (I don’t know enough about how Senate seats are filled to say for sure). However, if he (claims he) wasn’t and should have been, that simply proves he’s irresponsible. Whether or not you think they should, most people would assume that President(-elect)s have too many duties to catch everything, and so let this slide.

    Of course, this “internal investigation” isn’t enough to prove innocence, and it’s a joke to say that he “clears himself” with it. Likewise, if it becomes clear that they were colluding about the sale, or he’s proved to be involved with something else illegal, this comment is moot.

  • Bill Quick
    December 16th, 2008 | #3

    What would Obama have done wrong, exactly? As far as I can tell, the crime he would have committed would have been for Blagojevich to tell him he was going to sell his old Senate seat, and then not do anything about it.

    Well, yes, and, in fact, this did undoubtedly happen. Blago did speak with Rahm Emanuel, and anybody who thinks Blago did not make his pitch to sell Obama’s old seat is probably too naive to be allowed to vote in the first place.

    And I previously brought up this question - was it illegal not to report this crime in progress once you know about it, even if you refuse to participate?

    The general consensus was that it wasn’t illegal per se. On the other hand, the Lightbringer does not want to be exposed as somebody who simply stood by while a huge piece of corruption, centered on his Senate seat, was in progress. It doesn’t, you know, look good for his “Hope and Change” platform.

    As for the things that occur around him versus the things he actually does, don’t worry. Some of us - including me - will be able to address all of them. Remember the old phrase “A culture of corruption?” That is the culture from whence Obama springs, as the Blago mess well illustrates. Or, as my mother used to tell me all the time, you’re known by the company you keep. And Obama and his compatriots keep some incredibly sleazy company. And worse, do nothing to impede the sleaze.

  • SteveF
    December 16th, 2008 | #4

    What would Obama have done wrong, exactly?

    Failure to report a felony. (Better discussion here, but harder to follow.) That’s an old English Common Law concept that has mostly fallen by the wayside, but still exists in federal statute.

    The question at hand is whether H took any steps to conceal the crime. That’ll be tough to prove because it’s a squishy concept. More so since the fifth column is going to fight any charges, lying and concealing every step of the way.

comment on this article

Note: Daily Pundit uses the Akismet spam filter, which has been known, on occasion, to start flagging regular commenters' submissions as spam for a while until we can smack it around enough to change its mind. If you're having problems like this, you can bypass Akismet by registering. Your comments are still very welcome whether you register or not. The only drawback of not registering is, if Akismet flags your comment as spam, it may take us a while before we see it and fix it.

Quicktags:

Tags allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <img src="" alt="" /> <li> <ol> <s> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul>
Comment Preview (updated when idle):

 


return to main page (at this post)