ABC’s George Stephanopolous reported yesterday that sources close to President-Elect Barack Obama’s transition team have said that their internal report will show that there was no wrongdoing on Rahm Emanuel’s part in his “limited” contact with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The sources say that Emanuel’s contact was “one time” and that it had nothing to do with Obama’s vacated Senate seat. However, the report stops short of releasing any emails or written correspondence between the transition team and others. It seems that those records are not subject to public scrutiny, falling outside the freedom of information rules, as they do not address the transition period records of the President-Elect.
Isn’t that just so convenient, and did we expect that the Obama report would implicate Emanuel?
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 22, 2008 at 8:16 am
WarriorofG-d
People have gotten tired. When you see a large statue being of Obama displayed in January when they swear Obama in-you wonder what is the big deal and what is wrong with the american people. The white people are so scare of offending the african americans that they tolerate this display of dicatorship. You would think this man has no blemish and should be treated as a G-d. But, as they applauded Bush and stood up with cheers at his 2004 walkthrough in Congress, the same will happen to this man. People will stop loving him. What will be left will be the african americans yelling racist as they did for OJ Simpson when Obama’s is finally “revealed”. And as time goes by, like OJ, Barrack will have his day and people will not care about him. For John Lennon learned from his remark “We are even bigger than Yeshua the Christ”, so will Obama. For no-one is bigger than G-d and the lesson will be learned by Obama one of this days.
December 22, 2008 at 11:28 am
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Hey All,
Maybe Obama doesn’t understand the meaning of “transparency”.
When is the media going to keep him to the pledges he made when he announced his candidacy for President?
This stuff just amazes me. Now I haven’t heard any reports on this thread, only that the “inside” investigation had found no wrong doing on the part of Obama or his staff.
I heard briefly that the report was due sometime, but I wasn’t really paying attention as to when it would be released.
I wonder how many folks “investigate” themselves, and find that they had done something wrong? Seems as if the percentage would be quite low. When are people going to insist on an independent investigation? With the Democrats in the majority in both Houses, and the White House, it is very scary to me what they will be able to get away with.
Now they are saying that emails or faxes, or letters are off limits. I had heard that Rahm Emanuel had 21 contacts with the Govenor’s office. If it has been reported that the number of contacts is 21, I want to know how long Obama can get away with saying it happened only once?
When is the media going to start doing it’s job, and find out what is going on with this Administration to be?
Are we going to be spoon fed this crap for the next four years? Are we going to continue to hear only what Obama wants us to hear?
I thought Obama was going to bring “change” to Washington. This stuff seems to me to be the same ole, same ole.
I hope Obama’s supporters will respond. I find they have vanished since the election.
Why are you people who were so supportive of Obama, not defending him? Why can I not get your views to my simple questions?
December 22, 2008 at 11:37 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Just so Obama understands the meaning of “transparency”, I copied and pasted the wikipedia definition.
We all know he reads your blog every day JAMES.
“Transparency, as used in the humanities, when used in a social context, implies openness, communication, and accountability. It is a metaphorical extension of the meaning a “transparent” object is one that can be seen through. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.”
Call him out on this “journalists”. Do your job!
December 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Hey All,
It is not my place to keep asking JAMES for certain threads. This should be up to him.
With that said, I have a couple of comments on Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the Invocation at the Inauguration.
I’m not sure how I feel about Warren, or his whole “Purpose Driven Life” thing, but if it helps people put priorities in to their lives, then I have no problem with him, or his “theocracy”.
To each their own, I say.
I do have a problem with Barney Frank, coming out and talking bad about Warren. Frank has proven to be just about the most two faced, back stabbing, lying, and corrupt congressman that has been elected, that I can remember. This man does not know what the truth is. It is beyond my understanding how the people keep electing this “man”.
Barney Frank said that Warren is wrong for grouping homosexual relationships with, incest, and polygomy.
I have no problem with Warren grouping this together. It is my opinion that this lifestyle is a choice, and not born in to you. Now you can argue that science has found gays have something “different” in their brains that make them born that way. I say this is hogwash, an excuse, plain and simple. You could use their argument in the cases of incest, and polygomy. Maybe these people are “born” with something that makes them like their 2nd or 3rd cousin. Maybe someone is “born” where they can love more than one person, and choose to live the rest of their lives with multiple partners. That is just as logical, in my mind, as gays saying that they are born gay.
People are not born gay in my opinion. Everyone has “curiosity” about having relations with the same sex. Some people act on that “curiosity”, and most choose not too. Some people enjoy it so much that they decide to stay with that lifestyle. It is a choice. As long as it is not thrown up in my face, and they live a respecful, decent life, I have no problem with gays.
It is when they say that you have to “accept them for who they are”, or flaunt their homosexuality in my face, that I have a problem.
Proposition 8 in California was passed, and the majority of people want marriage defined as between a man and a woman. Now I hear that the lawyers are coming out of the woodwork trying to get this overturned.
I say the people have spoken, try again next time.
I really have no problem with gays being afforded a “civil union” document, but the truth is, they could go to a lawyer, and have something written up amongst themselves. I would think that someone would have some sort of “pledge” on line somewhere, that two people could sign, and it would be binding.
I DO have a problem with them wanting to call it “marriage”. That should be reserved to a union between a man and woman.
Call it something else, but leave “marriage” for a male/female relationship.
That seems fair to me.
December 22, 2008 at 8:00 pm
JAMES
IB: Don’t ever hesitate to suggest thread ideas….. that’s what I want. I have quickly read your comment, and will go back through it in depth because it is a lot of good thoughts. I do agree with what “marriage” should be!! Perhaps, with your permission, I’ll use your comment as a basis for a thread on the Rick Warren brouha!!
December 23, 2008 at 4:22 am
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
You are free to use my comments as you wish.
I just don’t want to seem too pushy. As you know, I really enjoy your blog, and want you to put up threads that you want.
Thanks for a great place for me to express my opinion.
December 23, 2008 at 9:51 am
Chisholm,
Hi all,
I agree with all that has been said.
One point about Warren. My daughter pointed out that gluttony is one of the deadly sins. Perhaps we should remind the good Pastor about that!
The other point I would like to make is as bogus as Obama’s internal investigation is Fitz has many hours of tapes we have not yet heard.
Also, Obama may get away with this nonsense now, however once he is in office all of his correspondence becomes public record, subject to subpoena.
It’s going to be a long four years.
December 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
JAMES
Chisholm: Your daughter makes a valid point!! My question to those who are angered at Obama for inviting him is, given the Pope’s position on the same subject, is our next President supposed to ignore having an audience with the leader of the Catholic Church? It may be a long four years, but let’s make sure it is ONLY 4 years!
December 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
I just got through reading the five page “report” from the Greg Craig on the contacts between Obama’s staff, and Blagojevich’s staff.
Funny thing is, it reports that Rahm Emanuel was the only individual from Obama’s staff that had any contact with Blagojevich’s office concerning who would replace Obama. As far as how many times Emanuel actually talked to the Govenor, they can’t figure out whether it was once or twice. I suppose the FBI will have to let them listen to the tapes. The report states that Emanuel had “about four” conversations with someone named Harris also. Boy that really nails it down, doesn’t it? “About four”, just exactly how many is “about four”?
“One or two” telephone conversations with the Govenor, and “about four” telephone conversations with this Harris guy. That’s six. I will not be surprised when it turns out to be 10 or 12, because this Craig dude has left it open. This isn’t a report, but an estimate.
I have a funny felling that the next four years are going to be pretty much like this.
December 23, 2008 at 6:54 pm
JAMES
IB: Harris is Blago’s Chief of Staff, who was also arrested. On Nov. 7th, Obama said filling his Senate was not for him to be concerned with, yet he and Axelrod gave Emanuel a list of six potential names to discuss with Blago. My question is, how do you investigate yourself?
December 24, 2008 at 10:02 am
Chisholm
James,
Amen! Four years only.
I was listening to Carl Rove on Fox last night. He made a great point. Obama’s in Hawaii and Rahm is on his way to Africa. Who do they leave to field questions about the “internal report”? Joe Biden, the one person who knows the least about this whole issue.
I wonder if this is how information will be disseminated during his administration.
I also wonder if Biden’s true role will be Obama apologist?
BTW, did you see the announcement by Biden that his mandate is to increase the middle class? Ah, he’s pursuing a “purposeful life”. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
I wonder how he intends to increase the middle class? By taxing the upper class so extensively that they become middle class and at the same time awarding enough ‘rebates’ to the poor to enable them to qualify for ‘middle class’ status?
One thing I’m certain of is that there will be some convoluted formula to measure his success that enables BHO/Biden to claim success regardless of the true results. With the help of a willing press, of course!