More Evidence Of Obama's Talks With Blagojevich, The Talks Obama Claims Never Took Place

Ever read the novel 1984 by George Orwell? If you haven't, you should. Why? Because something is happening right now that should scare anyone who has ever read that novel. Someone is trying to rewrite history.

According to Wikipedia, the following is the role of the Ministry Of Truth from Orwell's 1984:

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit party doctrine, for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite history so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the party must seem eternally right and strong.

So, how does that apply to today's real world? Well, when the Blagojevich scandal broke in Illinois, there were immediate questions about whether or not Barack Obama or any of his staff were involved in any way. Evidence began to surface.

David Axelrod said unambiguously during an interview with ABC News that Barack Obama had spoken with Gov. Blagojevich about filling the vacated Senate seat. There were also two news stories from KHQA (connecttristates.com), (one by Carol Sowers on Novemebr 5th, the other by Alexis Hunt on November 8th) that mentioned the meeting although those two stories have since been scrubbed from the connecttristates.com website.

There was also mention of contact between Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich in the Chicago Tribune. That story has not been scrubbed as of this writing and can be found here:

Governor Mum On Obama Seat
Monique Garcia and Rick Pearson
Chicago Tribune
October 30, 2008

And just in case this story gets scrubbed as well, here is the screen shot of the relevent text:



So, why am I taking the time and effort to expose all of this? Because of the reasons being given for these reports and statements being retracted.

KHQA issued the following statement:

"KHQA TV wishes to offer clarification regarding a story that appeared last month on our website ConnectTristates.com. The story, which discussed the appointment of a replacement for President Elect Obama in the U.S. Senate, became the subject of much discussion on talk radio and on blog sites Wednesday. The story housed in our website archive was on the morning of November 5, 2008. It suggested that a meeting was scheduled later that day between President Elect Obama and Illinois Governor Blagojevich. KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place. Governor Blagojevich did appear at a news conference in Chicago on that date."

Now, look carefully at what you just read. "KHQA has no knowledge that any meeting ever took place." And yet, they allowed two news stories to run for over a month leading their readers to believe that such a meeting did take place. It wasn't until after Barack Obama's name came up in connection with Blagojevich that KHQA decided that they weren't able to confirm anything. Prior to that, they had no problem at all running a story they had no confirmation on.

And the same thing with David Axelrod. It wasn't until after Barack Obama's name came up in connection with Blagojevich that Obama or Axelrod himself tried to "correct" the record. Prior to that, they were perfectly okay with allowing the story to stand as is.

Of course, that leaves us with the Chicago Tribune from which we read:

"I just don’t want to jinx him and I don’t like the karma of me thinking that far ahead," Blagojevich said of Obama’s prospects in Tuesday’s election. The governor added, "We have had some discussions about a process which we’ll share … if all goes well."

We'll see if this article gets scrubbed too. But clearly, if the Obama camp wanted to get the story straight from the get-go, they would not have waited this long to make all of these retractions.

That is why we should keep this in mind about the Ministry of Truth:

[The Party] cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the party must seem eternally right and strong.

And Orwell's words:

"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."

Obama Met With Blagojevich On November 5th And Senate Candidate #5 Is Jesse Jackson Jr.

God I love the Internet! How quickly and easily information comes out about the hot topics of the day! Here we are, just one day after Rod Blagojevich got arrested for his Chicago-style corruption, we've got an ID on one of the players.

We also have information that Barack Obama was indeed "in contact" with Blagojevich about who would take the vacated Senate seat.

According to a November 5th story by Carol Sowers of KHQA Channel 7:

Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled. That's one of Obama's first priorities today. He's meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it. Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement. There's already been speculation about his selection...from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago's south side who co-chaired Obama's presidential campaign, to recently-retired state senate president Emil Jones, to the governor himself.

So, Obama's comment about not being in contact with Blagojevich doesn't seem entirely truthful anymore and it is becoming clear that David Axelrod did not "mis-speak" during an interview with ABC about Obama having talked with Blagojevich.

And we know who Candidate #5 is. Jesse Jackson Jr., one of Obama's earliest supporters. Candidate #5 does not look good in the criminal complaint filed against Blagojevich by Patrick Fitzgerald.

“In a recorded conversation on October 31, 2008, Rod Blagojevich described an earlier approach by an associate of Senate Candidate Five as follows: ‘We were approached “pay to play.” That, you know, he’d raise me 500 grand. An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a senator.”

According to the affidavit, it looks like Senate Candidate #5 was willing to pay $1 million for the Senate seat and Blagojevich was seriously considering it.

You can access both complete articles on-line here:

Ill. Governor Meeting With Obama Today (Story has been removed)
Carol Sowers
KHQA
November 5, 2008

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Is 'Senate Candidate 5' In Blagojevich Criminal Complaint
Chris Fusco, Tim Novak and Natasha Korecki
Chicago Sun-Times
December 10, 2008

UPDATE: Apparently, the Carol Sowers story from connectristates.com has been removed. However, the story was linked by several other websites inculding the politico.com, Gateway Pundit and others. Here is a screenshot of the webpage before it got pulled:



Here is the Press Release from the Illinois Government News Network that confirms the November 5th meeting:

Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat
To fill President-Elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat, Governor will use deliberate process to select suitable replacement
IGNN
November 5, 2008

So, Who's Corrupt Now?

It isn't just pundits on the right who are asking this question and pointing out the obvious. Even the leftist-leaning MSNBC has now acknowledged that the Blagojevich scandal may have opened up some flood gates that cannot be easily closed.

In a "First thoughts" editorial, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann look at some major points of the issue:

*** So who’s corrupt now? Since his election last month, Obama and his team have masterfully choreographed every cabinet announcement, press conference, and meeting for maximum effect -- until yesterday, that is. On a day when the agenda was a meeting with Al Gore on energy and climate change, all hell broke lose after Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) was arrested for allegedly offering Obama's Senate seat for some kind of payment in return. It didn't tell us anything new about Blagojevich (he had been straddling the ethical line for some time), or Illinois politics (Blago could become the state's fourth governor in 40 years to go to prison), or even Obama (who is in no way implicated in the government's report). But it does begin to advance a GOP argument that the Democrats -- who campaigned against a Republican "culture of corruption" -- are no longer so innocent themselves. Are the ethical and legal issues that have recently dogged some Democrats (William Jefferson, Tim Mahoney, Charlie Rangel) beginning to approach what we saw in the last few years from Republicans (Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, Ted Stevens, etc.)? And while the term “culture of corruption” gets thrown around a lot, the fact is that a state possibly having four governors go to prison in 40 years is most definitely a culture of corruption. ... *** The impact on Obama: As for the scandal’s impact on Obama, no doubt that it will be embarrassing for him and his incoming administration, even though the president-elect isn’t implicated here (in fact, the affidavit makes it crystal clear that Obama and his team weren’t willing to play ball). We’re probably going to see a top Obama aide -- Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett? -- on tape with Blagojevich. And that shouldn’t be too surprising (after all, why wouldn’t you return your governor’s phone calls in this post-election period?) But Obama also didn’t help himself with his initial comment yesterday on the matter. Unlike other Illinois Democrats, he didn’t condemn Blagojevich’s actions, if true. Instead, he said he was “saddened and sobered” by the news, adding that it wasn’t appropriate to comment on the issue. But then he later did comment, saying, "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening.” Yet that contradicted an interview last month by Obama adviser David Axelrod, who said that Obama had spoken with Blagojevich about the vacancy. Axelrod issued a statement last night saying that he was “mistaken” in that interview. Team Obama's initial response yesterday to the scandal seemed par for the course: During his two years on the campaign trail, Obama often swung and missed on his initial statement regarding a controversy -- Bitter-gate and Jeremiah Wright come immediately to mind -- before finding a better response 24 to 48 hours later. ... *** Why didn’t Dems do something earlier? Republicans have themselves a talking point they will constantly throw in Obama's face (and Rahm's and Axe's), simply because they are all Chicago pols. This means Obama will always have to look more transparent than usual and, well, less Chicago-y. The one criticism, by the way, that really could stick to the entire Illinois Democratic political establishment: passivity. It was a running joke for years that Blago had a corrupt side, so why didn't more Democrats step up. Sure, politics is politics, and sometimes you have stand by folks who you THINK are corrupt but you can't prove it since no one wants to sound like Joe McCarthy. Still, the passivity here is something that will likely tug at many Illinois Democrats. Could they have done something sooner?

MSNBC, an outfit that tried everything in its power to hide vital information about Barack Obama during the campaign, is being forced into reporting the contradictions of people like David Axelrod. Even now they are trying to shield Obama and in this editorial made the claim that "the affidavit makes it crystal clear that Obama and his team weren’t willing to play ball." That's not entirely true. There were several references in the affidavit that suggest Obama aids were in some sort of negotiation with Blagojevich. Section 107 notes specifically that an option involving "Change to Win" would not have Obama's "fingerprints" all over it. If there were no involvement by the Obama team, why would anyone be worrying about "fingerprints" of Obama's involvement?

Those are the three major points so far. I am sure that as more information comes to light and we learn the names of people like "Advisor A" and so forth, that the major points will change or simply be magnified into larger issues.

But the part about "Obama will always have to look more transparent than usual and, well, less Chicago-y" is absolutely true. He is under a microscope now, moreso than ever.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

First Thoughts: So Who's Corrupt Now?
Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann
MSNBC.com
December 10, 2008

Obama Claims: "I Had No Contact With Blagojevich Over Vacated Senate Seat"

There was a short news blurb about this. It obviously came from a press release. However, this may turn out to be Obama's first "untruth" of his administration. Why would I say this? Read the following excerpt from the criminal complaint against Blagojevich:

107. On November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor B. ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed with Advisor B his idea for a 501(c)(4) organization. Advisor B stated that he likes the idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect’s perspective, there would be fewer “fingerprints” on the President-elect’s involvement with Change to Win because Change to Win already has an existing stream of revenue and, therefore, “you won’t have stories in four years that they bought you off.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that he likes the 501(c)(4) idea because he knows it will be there in two years when he is no longer Governor, whereas Change to Win might not be.

Why would anyone be concerned about the President-elect's "fingerprints" if there were no involvement to worry about? We need to know who Advisor B is and exactly how much Obama knew about this whole thing.

Further, David Alexrod gave an interview in which he was asked "who the Governor might pick to take Obama’s senate seat." According to The Hill:

Despite Obama's insistence that he has had no contact with Blagojevich about who might fill his open Senate seat, ABC News reported Tuesday that in late November, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said he knew Obama had "talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Clearly, Obama was in some sort of contact with Blagojevich. We must know those names and how deeply Obama was involved.

You can access the Fox News blurb on-line here:

Obama: I Had No Contact With Blagojevich Over Vacated Senate Seat
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2008

You can access the story from The Hill on-line here:

RNC: Obama's statement on Blagojevich 'insufficient'
Sam Youngman
The Hill
December 9, 2008

And the criminal complaint is available on-line here:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, and JOHN HARRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
December 2008