It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
On Thursday, Blagojevich's lawyers asked a federal judge to subpoena the president to testify about questions surrounding the government's allegation that Blagojevich was selling or trading Obama's Senate seat after his election to the White House in November 2008.
"President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation," reads Blagojevich's 11-page motion, filed with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.
How can that be?
Originally posted by damwel
or be proven to be propaganda against Obama.
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).
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.
Originally posted by damwel
Swept under the rug or be proven to be propaganda against Obama. Well now we know Fox News is fair and balanced that's why they have given millions to the republicans.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by jibeho
...may...
...believed...
...belief... x2
These are terms to describe hard facts?
Call it what you will.
Originally posted by jibeho
We'll just let the court decide for a change??
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Aggie Man
And if it goes "south" and obama is implicated, what will you be saying then? Making up excuses to try and protect obama such as, "everyone else did it, too?"
No doubt it will once again come down to depending on what the meaning of is is ...
[edit on 4/23/2010 by centurion1211]
Originally posted by trueperspective
Yeah, what will Obama say??
I think everyone NEEDS to understand the implications here. If he does get summoned to court he is screwed either way. WHY??
Because he either says he had nothing to do with the whole thing and then it is his word vs. more then 2 witnesses that said that he advised and made contact with candidates.
If he CHANGES his story and says that he DID contact candidates and had an advisory role in the selection of the new senator then he LIED. and he is a LIER and I will be convinced that he can not be trusted just like most people already think.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Aggie Man
And if it goes "south" and obama is implicated, what will you be saying then? Making up excuses to try and protect obama such as, "everyone else did it, too?"
No doubt it will once again come down to depending on what the meaning of is is ...
[edit on 4/23/2010 by centurion1211]
And what will you say when he is NOT implicated? Making up excuses?
That really was an unnecessary comment.
Typical LEO