Chicago Sun Times:

Blagojevich to judge: Make Obama testify
Ex-gov says president had more of a role in pushing Valerie Jarrett to replace him in the Senate
Comments

April 22, 2010

By NATASHA KORECKI and CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporters
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers asked a federal judge today to force President Obama to testify at Blagojevich’s upcoming corruption trial, asserting that Obama played more of a role in the process of selecting someone to replace him in the U.S. Senate than Obama has acknowledged.

On the day before he was elected president, then-Sen. Obama personally called a union official about his desire for Blagojevich to appoint Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett to replace him in the Senate, according to Blagojevich’s defense filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago.

The court filing cites statements the unnamed labor official made to the FBI as part of its criminal investigation of the since-ousted governor.

The statements by the union official to the FBI — as relayed through Blagojevich’s lawyers — had never been made public before now.

They appear to slightly differ from Obama’s recollection of events regarding Jarrett and regarding Blagojevich’s authority as governor to appoint someone to fill Obama’s Senate seat.

Shortly after Blagojevich’s arrest in December 2008 on charges that included allegations he tried to sell an appointment to fill Obama’s seat in the Senate, a lawyer for Obama, then the president-elect, issued a report about “any staff contacts or communications” between Obama and his inner circle “relating to the president-elect’s succesor in the United States Senate.”

“The president-elect had no contact or communication with Gov. Blagojevich or members of his staff about the Senate seat. In various conversations with transition staff and others, the president-elect expressed his preference that Valerie Jarrett work with him in the White House. He also stated that he would neither stand in her way if she wanted to pursue the Senate seat nor actively seek to have her or any other particular candidate appointed to the vacancy.”

In their court filing today, Blagojevich’s lawyers said FBI interviews with the unnamed labor union official and also with an unnamed labor union president show Obama did try to intervene on Jarrett’s behalf, though.

Blagojevich’s lawyers cited a Feb. 2, 2009, interview with the labor union president regarding his conversation with the other union official who spoke of getting a Nov. 3, 2008, phone message from Obama.

The court filing says, in part: “After labor union official listened to the message, labor union official told labor union president, ‘I’m the one.’ Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that [Jarrett] was his pick.”

Blagojevich’s lawyers also cited a Feb. 3, 2009, FBI interview with the union official, quoting the official as saying, “Obama was aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.”

The Blagojevich court filing doesn’t accuse the president of any wrongdoing.

But Blagojevich’s lawyers, who previously said they might seek the president’s testimony, asked the judge in the case today to issue a trial subpoena to compel Obama to testify at the former governor’s June trial, saying Obama would be called to corroborate parts of their defense.

“There are two conflicting stories, and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government’s claims,” the Blagojevich filing said. “Only President Obama can do this.”

Last year, Blagojevich’s lawyers asked for FBI reports of an interview with the president.

The White House has declined to comment.

“As of today’s date,” Blagojevich’s lawyers wrote, “the defense has not received any notes, transcripts or reports from President Obama’s interview with the government.”

Portions of the electronic court filing were blacked out by defense lawyers, apparently because of an order by U.S. District Judge James Zagel that has kept some material in the case under seal. But, because of a glitch, the redacted portions were viewable.

Click here for the unredacted file of Obama subpoena
http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2010/04 ... redac.html

Click here for a related story Re: Tony Rezko's involvement:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/blago/2010/04 ... ds_ab.html

I saw this but decided to save "Blago" news for you and Cat to post.

Yeah it's not exactly breaking news but I thought I'd throw it out there for comment. I have been really busy of late it seems.

Fat chance on that happening ..... but it sure would be fun to see him squirm, wouldn't it? And NO teleprompters!

I guess it would be fun to watch if it didn't mean that this would entail our President (whether you like him or not) to become distraction from the real issues that are facing our country.

We are fighting two wars, unemployment in double digits, the threat from Iran and North Korea, not to mention the issues with social security and health care. Yeah, great for the American people!

I think corruption in our government is a KEY and a REAL issue for the American people and should be addressed immediately, especially now that it COULD be reaching the highest office in the land and arguably the most powerful man in the world.
I am not saying the president has anything to hide from. I am just bringing up the subject and will wait for a perponderance of evidence before I will make any judgement on my part but the president (and all of his lawyers) should comply. Blago is a scum bag but he and the president came from the same town and back scratching bunch of politicians so there may be something there. If so the American people should know about it and make their own decisions.

no one is above US law...

In IL they are. didn't you get the memo?