I accept Obama's conclusion of his own internal investigation re: contacts with Blago just as much as I accepted Palin's conclusions of her own internal investigation re: troopergate.

Come on folks, the Obama investigation of Obama cleared Obama of all wrong doing. Nothing to see here, move along.

I crown President Barack Obama as King Teflon President the Second

KaponoFor3: I accept Obama's conclusion of his own internal investigation re: contacts with Blago just as much as I accepted Palin's conclusions of her own internal investigation re: troopergate.

So, in other words, you reject it as being a pile of crap?

I accept the DOJ version that Obama was not involved AND Obama saying he wasn't involved.

"Here's what we want you to know.

See? Transparent!"

/and comfortably stuffed through on Christmas eve. There's change for you.

It's going to be a fun 8 years. The price of tears will plummet though, so sell now.

Cat Food Sandwiches: So, in other words, you reject it as being a pile of crap?

No, just I take it with a grain of salt like I do all "internal investigations" that are performed by the people who have way to much to lose if they end up finding wrongdoing.

KaponoFor3: I accept Obama's conclusion of his own internal investigation re: contacts with Blago just as much as I accepted Palin's conclusions of her own internal investigation re: troopergate.

the main difference, and this is a key one, is that palin's was in response to actually being officially accused, legally, of wrongdoing. and it also contradicted the official report.

obama's comes after him being officially accused of nothing, and it agrees with the official report.

log_jammin: I accept the DOJ version that Obama was not involved AND Obama saying he wasn't involved.

Obama was involved, he just did nothing illegal. His team obviously had some contact with Blag as Blag knew Obama wouldn't "play ball".

Number 4 on the list is what I hate about modern politics. They always send out the lackey to test the waters, then turn on the lackey if they want to change routes.

Mordant
The price of tears will plummet though, so sell now.

I'm a buyer, so it'll be a great market for me. I see a bathtub pool fair-sized lake of tears coming up. And I will frolick in the salty waves.

"Contact" is not "involved".

burndtdan: the main difference, and this is a key one, is that palin's was in response to actually being officially accused, legally, of wrongdoing. and it also contradicted the official report.

That difference is pretty irrelevant. I would expect both to hide the truth if they actually found something that could be damaging.

All I'm saying is be fair. If Palin's internal investigation is taken with a grain of salt, then Obama's should be as well.

Just because he isn't officially accused of anything does not mean he does not have the same motivation to ensure that the report came out positive on his end.

log_jammin: "Contact" is not "involved".

Unless there is genital contact.

burndtdan: with the official report.

Oh, did I miss the part where a grand jury heard evidence and this whole thing went to trial and had a resolution? I'll have to read about that in the official report I guess.

KaponoFor3: Just because he isn't officially accused of anything does not mean he does not have the same motivation to ensure that the report came out positive on his end.

Riiiiiiigghhht. So he should have actually put out a report that contradicted the facts as detailed by the DOJ, which specifically said that there was no improper contact between Blago and the transition team, just to prove that he was being fair?

Came in to see the "neutral" rating of this headline.

I was sadly correct.

/to balance headlines only helps when the moderators know what the difference is.

I predict that Richardson will be made a sacrificial lamb to show that Obama is tough on corruption.

NYZooMan: "Here's what we want you to know.

See? Transparent!"

/and comfortably stuffed through on Christmas eve. There's change for you.

it must be hard for someone who has supported obama so fervently on these boards to have to say something so negative!

KaponoFor3: That difference is pretty irrelevant. I would expect both to hide the truth if they actually found something that could be damaging.

All I'm saying is be fair. If Palin's internal investigation is taken with a grain of salt, then Obama's should be as well.

Just because he isn't officially accused of anything does not mean he does not have the same motivation to ensure that the report came out positive on his end.

so... you're asking him to prove a negative, in the absense of any evidence of the positive in the first place, and in the meantime, he can't be the one that presents any of the evidence.

that makes sense. i would use the word "fair" in describing that.

lunchinlewis: Oh, did I miss the part where a grand jury heard evidence and this whole thing went to trial and had a resolution? I'll have to read about that in the official report I guess.

i was talking about the criminal complaint, dumbass.

Dinki: Riiiiiiigghhht. So he should have actually put out a report that contradicted the facts as detailed by the DOJ, which specifically said that there was no improper contact between Blago and the transition team, just to prove that he was being fair?

FAIL. I'm saying there is no chance that he would have put out a report that actually found wrongdoing even if wrongdoing occurred and he discovered it upon investigation. That's the problem with internal investigations -- the person doing the investigation has too much invested in making sure it comes out looking good for them. That's why we like our investigators to be impartial.

Just saying take it with a grain of salt. Is it possible that the report is totally true? Absolutely. Is it possible they found something damaging but chose not to report it? Absolutely.

KaponoFor3: burndtdan: the main difference, and this is a key one, is that palin's was in response to actually being officially accused, legally, of wrongdoing. and it also contradicted the official report.

That difference is pretty irrelevant. I would expect both to hide the truth if they actually found something that could be damaging.

All I'm saying is be fair. If Palin's internal investigation is taken with a grain of salt, then Obama's should be as well.

Just because he isn't officially accused of anything does not mean he does not have the same motivation to ensure that the report came out positive on his end.

It's not only that he isn't accused of anything, there is taped conversation where Blago calls him a motherfarker for not offering anything. What more could you ever hope for?

I grabbed this on another thread about this idiocy. At least one Republican on Fark doesn't have his head up his ass. My apologies if this is against Fark policy...although I don't believe it is.


mongbiohazard:If my fellow righties/Republicans are going to be trotting out lame-ass shiat like this and slapping each other on the backs then this is going to be one long motherfarking 4 years for me. Don't make me register independent, you dumbass bastards. We're better than this.

For fark's sake my fellow Republicans - save your farking energy for when an ACTUAL scandal happens. EVERY president will have SOME kind of scandal or example of poor judgement (we are all human and flawed, after all) so have the farking honesty and decency at least to wait for that instead of trying to exaggerate a situation in which it looks like he did the right thing and declined to bribe someone. Getting all worked up over this one just makes us look pathetic and ineffectual. What are we going to do next, complain about what a scandal it is that he won't steal something?

Ugh... It's going to be a long, embarrassing, four years.

KaponoFor3: I accept Obama's conclusion of his own internal investigation re: contacts with Blago just as much as I accepted Palin's conclusions of her own internal investigation re: troopergate.

Yes, but in Obama's case the prosecutor said he did nothing wrong, in Palin's case it said she broke ethics rules.

burndtdan: so... you're asking him to prove a negative, in the absense of any evidence of the positive in the first place, and in the meantime, he can't be the one that presents any of the evidence.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying take the report with a grain of salt, knowing the motivations behind the forces who are investigating. That is all. Any internal investigation, whether done by a Democrat or a Republican, that ends up clearing the person being investigated of any wrongdoing should be taken with a grain of salt. Look behind the curtain at the motivations, that's all I'm saying.

KaponoFor3: Dinki: Riiiiiiigghhht. So he should have actually put out a report that contradicted the facts as detailed by the DOJ, which specifically said that there was no improper contact between Blago and the transition team, just to prove that he was being fair?

FAIL. I'm saying there is no chance that he would have put out a report that actually found wrongdoing even if wrongdoing occurred and he discovered it upon investigation. That's the problem with internal investigations -- the person doing the investigation has too much invested in making sure it comes out looking good for them. That's why we like our investigators to be impartial.

Just saying take it with a grain of salt. Is it possible that the report is totally true? Absolutely. Is it possible they found something damaging but chose not to report it? Absolutely.

The FBI found nothing wrong! Jeebus. Let it rest.

burndtdan: i was talking about the criminal complaint, dumbass.

Merry Xmas to you too. I was just raising the point that we've only heard one side and there is still probably going to be a trial with testimony and depositions and hopefully a verdict. Nothing is really "official" yet, so lets just drop catch phrases like that. It's a piss-poor way to load your argument.

You're welcome.

vernonFL: KaponoFor3: I accept Obama's conclusion of his own internal investigation re: contacts with Blago just as much as I accepted Palin's conclusions of her own internal investigation re: troopergate.

Yes, but in Obama's case the prosecutor said he did nothing wrong, in Palin's case it said she broke ethics rules.

I have a feeling this is the same game as, "yes, Free Republic has gone off the deep end, but so has (insert liberal site here)".

soy_bomb: Come on folks, the Obama investigation of Obama cleared Obama of all wrong doing. Nothing to see here, move along.

It worked for Sarah Palin.

KaponoFor3: No, I'm not. I'm just saying take the report with a grain of salt, knowing the motivations behind the forces who are investigating.

but you're questioning the motives of someone for whom you have no reason to question the motives of. people asked for additional information, he provided it. the lack of any real risk for not doing it (because he isn't actually accused of anything) means he had no compelling reason to do it at all. thus, if he had something to hide, he would have simply said no.

newmoonpuppyhead: The FBI found nothing wrong! Jeebus. Let it rest.

I swear, sometimes I think people don't even read my posts. They just see my name and think "OMG he must be saying X". I'm not accusing nmph of doing this cause I think that he is actually one of the more reasonable, intelligent leftist posters here (who I happen to disagree with but the guy doesn't act like a dick).

My only point on this: take internal investigations with a grain of salt. Period.

FBI and Fitzgerald clear him? Fantastic. Blago calling him a MFer for not trading anything? Pretty good evidence that he didn't play ball.

I'm giving myself an internal investigation right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/wait, what?

newmoonpuppyhead: I have a feeling this is the same game as, "yes, Free Republic has gone off the deep end, but so has (insert liberal site here)foxnews.com".

KaponoFor3: That difference is pretty irrelevant.

No, it's not. One directly contradicts the official account of events. One corroborates that official account. There's a fundamental difference there.

Yeah, I get the underlying theme of your argument, that all communications from an organization which pertain to that organization should be treated as suspect. That's not a complete thought. The complete thought is that all communications about an organization which pertain to that organization should be treated as suspect until corroborated by an impartial third party.

burndtdan: thus, if he had something to hide, he would have simply said no.

He's not stupid. He knows that saying "no" automatically makes people think you have something to hide. Doing an "internal investigation" that clears you of wrongdoing is a much better smokescreen.

/Not saying Obama did anything wrong on this, speaking more in generalities about political strategy.

When did being a potential felon become contagious? The best argument anyone can make here is guilt by association. There is nothing substantive that Obama or Rahm did anything improper. The federal investigator has interviewed everyone and has their cooperation.

Why are we trying to make a scandal out of nothing? Have we become scandal-junkies, desperate for our next fix?

FTFA: "To the extent that the report succeeds in its goal of establishing the distance between Obama and Blagojevich, it necessarily raises the question: Why was the president-elect and leader of the Democratic party playing no role in a key appointment to national office being made in his home state, and by a Democratic governor?"

Because if he had, speculation would be rampant about Obama's "undue influence". Only the governor's opinion matters on this issue, so any contact Obama had would be advisory at best. I'd say the President-Elect has bigger items on his agenda than chirping in the governor's ear - staffing his cabinet, par example.

Why isn't Obama playing a bigger role in California's budget crisis? Because that's Arnold's job, just like filling Obama's seat is Blago's job (though hopefully, the IL legislature can force him to punt that to the next Gov).

burndtdan: but you're questioning the motives of someone for whom you have no reason to question the motives of. people asked for additional information, he provided it. the lack of any real risk for not doing it (because he isn't actually accused of anything) means he had no compelling reason to do it at all. thus, if he had something to hide, he would have simply said no.

This could have been totally avoided if Obama had just agreed to the FBI's Town Hall meetings, the original transcripts of these given to a respectable news agency/every wacko on the internet.

lunchinlewis: Merry Xmas to you too. I was just raising the point that we've only heard one side and there is still probably going to be a trial with testimony and depositions and hopefully a verdict. Nothing is really "official" yet, so lets just drop catch phrases like that. It's a piss-poor way to load your argument.

the criminal complaint is transcripts of communications. that most certainly represents an official account of the matter, when the entire question is one of the existence and nature of those communications.

KaponoFor3:
My only point on this: take internal investigations with a grain of salt. Period.

Thank god you're not speaking in context to the thread topic.

Dr Dreidel:
Because if he had, speculation would be rampant about Obama's "undue influence". Only the governor's opinion matters on this issue, so any contact Obama had would be advisory at best. I'd say the President-Elect has bigger items on his agenda than chirping in the governor's ear - staffing his cabinet, par example.

LOL!

People: What was Obama's influence on Blag's selling the senate seat?
Investigation: None
People: Well why the F not? That's pretty shady...

jgbrowning: Thank god you're not speaking in context to the thread topic

Thank God you are contributing as well.

KaponoFor3: newmoonpuppyhead: The FBI found nothing wrong! Jeebus. Let it rest.

I swear, sometimes I think people don't even read my posts. They just see my name and think "OMG he must be saying X". I'm not accusing nmph of doing this cause I think that he is actually one of the more reasonable, intelligent leftist posters here (who I happen to disagree with but the guy doesn't act like a dick).

My only point on this: take internal investigations with a grain of salt. Period.

FBI and Fitzgerald clear him? Fantastic. Blago calling him a MFer for not trading anything? Pretty good evidence that he didn't play ball.

Cool. Thanks! I'm not understanding Illinois at the moment. Or maybe it's Blago. The dude should go. Now. fast.

I think the only thing that is really interesting here, if when/if Obama fires Fitzgerald.

He almost cant fire him with out major outrage now. Whether it is warranted or not.

newmoonpuppyhead: I'm not understanding Illinois at the moment. Or maybe it's Blago. The dude should go. Now. fast.

I think he is just holding onto the seat so he will have something to trade with the feds in exchange for a plea.

Prattle Assassin: I'm giving myself an internal investigation right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/wait, what?

Way to up the clicks on your profile!

KaponoFor3: newmoonpuppyhead: I'm not understanding Illinois at the moment. Or maybe it's Blago. The dude should go. Now. fast.

I think he is just holding onto the seat so he will have something to trade with the feds in exchange for a plea.

Good point.

KaponoFor3: jgbrowning: Thank god you're not speaking in context to the thread topic

Thank God you are contributing as well.

I wonder what you must think of your "contribution" then.

moonscatter: Why are we trying to make a scandal out of nothing? Have we become scandal-junkies, desperate for our next fix?

Have they found Obama's birth certificate yet? I'm still waiting for confirmation that is he isn't a Muslim born in Kenya.

newmoonpuppyhead: KaponoFor3: newmoonpuppyhead: I'm not understanding Illinois at the moment. Or maybe it's Blago. The dude should go. Now. fast.

I think he is just holding onto the seat so he will have something to trade with the feds in exchange for a plea.

Good point.

I wonder what would happen if he DID appoint someone right now. The Senate has the right to seat the candidate of their choice - so even if he picked someone, they could refuse to recognize him.

Regardless of what action gets taken, I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of spin-off lawsuits from this.