- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.
John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.
"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.
Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.
Harris: Obama knew of Blagojevich plot
Harris: Obama knew of Blagojevich plot :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.
Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.
... how is it a problem if the President knew of his intentions? I mean, it's not like anybody actually agreed to the man's demands. He got arrested. I guess I'm just not seeing what Obama should have done differently.
Failure to report a crime is a pretty serious offense, for anyone, no?
Failure to report a crime is a pretty serious offense, for anyone, no?
Obama's 2008 internal report about his staff's contacts with Blagojevich at the time indicates that Balanoff relayed to Jarrett that Blagojevich was interested in a Health and Human Services Cabinet post.
Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.
It will be interesting to watch to say the less though. This could go poorly for either President Obama or Harris.
Harris is testifying under a plea agreement, so the only way it can go poorly for Harris is if he isn't telling the truth.
.
Remember how Blago got caught?
Wiretap.
I think the Executive Branch's job was performed successfully. No, seriously, what the **** else do you want?
Edit: Maybe he should have announced it on television, blown the whole investigation? Spooked Blago into keeping that idiocy off the phone?
Harris: Obama knew of Blagojevich plot :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Gov. Blagojevich
What did he know, and when did he know it? Time for a Special Prosecutor to look into the Obama Corruption.
Failure to report a crime is a pretty serious offense, for anyone, no?
No.
It is not illegal to fail to report a crime. It's only illegal if you participate or actively mislead the police or otherwise take action to prevent the person from being brought to justice. Doing nothing is not illegal.
Now wait, I'm confused....
Third Party heresay spoken to a reporter from a notoriously anti-war magazine by an unnamed source should be grounds for the dimissal of a General during a time of war.
however
We're supposed to ignore and write off as useless and not worth paying attention to the third party heresay spoken under oath in a trial that paints the president in a negative light.
Gotcha.
Now wait, I'm confused....
Third Party heresay spoken to a reporter from a notoriously anti-war magazine by an unnamed source should be grounds for the dimissal of a General during a time of war.
however
We're supposed to ignore and write off as useless and not worth paying attention to the third party heresay spoken under oath in a trial that paints the president in a negative light.
Gotcha.
Now wait, I'm confused....
Third Party heresay spoken to a reporter from a notoriously anti-war magazine by an unnamed source should be grounds for the dimissal of a General during a time of war.
however
We're supposed to ignore and write off as useless and not worth paying attention to the third party heresay spoken under oath in a trial that paints the president in a negative light.
Gotcha.
Yes?
The first link on that page is another board like this one, where some posters insist it is illegal and others say it isn't.
The second talks about an Ohio law that applies in certain circumstances, such as being required to report a dead body.
The third is another board.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?