Uh oh.Â
It’s possible (though anyone from Chicago will tell you it’s extremely unlikely) that there was no wrongdoing here, and fairly likely there’s no provable wrongdoing. Still, being this close to a criminal investigation before even taking office doesn’t bode well.
The fact he is talking to prosecutors is tactically very dangerous for Obama. Even if he’s done nothing wrong, prosecutors might find Obama’s statements perjurous, as happened to Scooter Libby, and I don’t think a President can pardon himself.
{ 8 comments }
There’s still time for Bush to pardon him, though….
Not sure why you say a President can’t pardon himself. The only exception in Article II, Section 2 is for "cases of impeachment." I suppose that would be a problem if Obama was also impeached for the underlying conduct (whatever that is), but if that were the case, no other President could pardon him, either.
All this assumes, of course, that Obama did anything wrong in the first place. The mere fact that he’s talking to prosecutors, without more, is scant evidence of that.
Xrlq’s last blog post..Second Amendment Blogger Bash 2009
Clinton already established a precedent that perjury isn’t illegal if you’re the President.
Xrlq is completely right: just talking to prosecutors is NO REASON AT ALL to think he’s corrupt. None. Zero. Zip. He’s answering prosecutors’ questions, as he properly should do.
It’s exactly as if your house got burned down, and, prosecutors wanted to interview all your neighbors about it. That proves NOTHING about your neighbors except that they wanted to ask some questions.
Yep, there’s no question that President Obama came up in one of the sleaziest and most corrupt political machines in America. So what? There is no evidence to link him to any actual illegal activities. None whatsoever.
I predict that this will be a minor annoyance to President Obama.
There is no evidence to link him to any actual illegal activities. None whatsoever.
Sorry guys, this just isn’t true. There’s considerable circumstantial evidence he was involved in an illegal pay-for-play influence-peddling scheme with Tony Rezko, exactly the sort of thing Blago is being charged with. The appraiser who refused to sign off on Obama’s crooked appraisal (and was fired for it) was asked about this deal by the FBI and says "bribe" and "kickback" were the words being used by the agents.
In the case of the Senate seat, there appear to have been definite conversations between Obama’s people and Blago’s, almost certainly with Obama’s knowledge, regarding what they would or would not do to get their person in that seat.
All this assumes, of course, that Obama did anything wrong in the first place. The mere fact that he’s talking to prosecutors, without more, is scant evidence of that.
Heh. You clearly don’t live in Chicago, where it’s generally a safe assumption that if a politician’s lips are moving, he’s probably either committing a crime or negotiating immunity. Still, as I said it’s likely the absence of evidence will keep him out of legal trouble, though this should not be construed as evidence of absence.
You know who else prosecutors routinely talk to?
Victims.
So is Obama a suspect or a victim? What I’ve seen so far suggests the latter, but I leave open the possibility of the former.
What get’s my hide is the Obama released a report exonerating himself (shock, shock) and this seems good enough for the media: Nothing to see here folks, move along. Let’s not get distracted…
So is Obama a suspect or a victim? Â
Generally the only victims in a corruption case are the taxpayers. I doubt he was interviewed on that basis.
I am just amazed that anyone thinks that an honest politician is coming out of Chicago. He may be the least sleazy person there. But if anyone thought he would work to uproot corruption he would of been out of the political scene so fast people would of forgotten that he was ever there.
Comments on this entry are closed.