Via IreneFingIrene, the unredacted motion, below.

The original motion to compel Obama's testimony heavily redacted.

But I have the real thing, unredacted, posted in its entirety below.

I was going to say how Irene got this, but on the off, off chance that this could happen again, I won't say how she did. I mean, there is a small chance that another redacted document, maybe something more important, might come down the pike, and maybe Irene will be able to give it to us.

Suspicions This Was Deliberate: I voiced my own in the thread. Seems a lot of people are saying so.

If the court wanted this redacted -- but Blago's lawyers didn't -- they could get the accusations of Obama and bribery out there by having an "oopsie" moment.

Note the allegation is that a "public official" (Obama, they mean) was offered a bribe but declined it.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:19 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 4758 words, total size 30 kb.

A "jib squeak," to which William Shatner once attributed his own alleged on-air flatulence?

Or does something stink downtown?

Here he's talking about producing new sources of energy and damn if he doesn't release a little alt-fuel as he does.

Emmanuel smiles at the alleged fart. I guess he's proud to lead by example.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Actually, this is a false deployment of Slublog's Flaming Blago-Skull. I am just posting it because I haven't had an excuse to in forever.

I really don't have an excuse now, either, because this is pretty much a non-story.

But damn it's funny.

So...

Ousted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has asked a federal judge subpoena the president to testify at his corruption trial.

In a motion filed Thursday with U.S. District Judge James Zagel, Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam says President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of allegations made in the indictment.

It would be extremely unusual for a sitting president to testify at a corruption trial.

Let me just say it's unlikely the judge will grant the motion. Supposedly US presidents can be compelled to testify this way, but, after the Clinton debacle, I have a feeling judges are going to come up with reasons to not grant such motions.

Even if the motion is granted, which it probably won't be, I doubt very much that Obama has much interesting to say. Or that he would say, even if he had something interesting to say. It strikes me as very unlikely he would have cared so much about this seat he'd be willing to engage in bribery. Note that that's not me saying I think he's a paragon of incorruptible virtue. Far from it. It's just that even serial liars are capable of making rational decisions about "What does this get me, and what could I lose?"

I mean, I'm sure he'd break the law for something he cared about. Like healthcare. Or raising taxes. But getting his top pick for a Senate seat which would almost surely stay liberal Democrat no matter what he did? Surely he wasn't that invested in his particular successor to play footsie with bribery.

I am sure there are a lot of overly-optimistic conservatives, always really hoping that this or that subpoena pans out, and I guess it's fine to hope like that, but the long history of this sort of thing suggests that nothing will come from it. I just want to caution against that; I remember when I was on that bandwagon myself, in the Clinton years, and was always hoping that this House panel would finally get to the truth.

I wound up politically broken-hearted every six months.

Except for the Lewinsky thing, and that didn't really pay off politically at all. Clinton stayed in office and the Democrats picked up seats.

This is PR move by Blagojevich -- he and his wife are now on realty-tv shows every year, after all -- and some kind of attempt the pressure Democratic-connected prosecutors to avoid a big trial and give him a generous plea offer.

Typical We'll put the system on trial! desperation.

Thanks to Star Chamber Maid.

More Details: Thanks to Intaglio. Here's the Chicago Sun-Times summary, and here's the actual defense filing.

Defense lawyers in the case of Rod Blagojevich moved today to issue a trial subpoena to the President of the United States, asking for his testimony at this June's trial.

They argue in a federal court filing that President Obama would act as a corroborating witness to former governor Blagojevich.

"There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that contradicts the government's claims. Only President Obama can do this," defense lawyers wrote.

Last year, Blagojevich's lawyers asked for FBI reports of an interview with President Obama.

The White House has declined comment.

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

"President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment. In
addition, President Obama's public statements contradict other witness statements, specifically those made by labor union official and Senate Candidate B (Valerie Jarrett). It is anticipated that labor union official will be a witness for the government. His accounts of events directly related to the charges in the indictment are contradicted by President Obama's public statement," defense lawyers wrote.

Doesn't say what contradictory statements they have in mind. Note: Actually, Blago's brief does say what statements they have in mind -- but they're all redacted by the court. The only thing that you can tell from the unredacted parts is that Blagojevich is disputing whether the president had any representatives taking part in these "deals."

They are specifically demanding Obama come to court to sit in the witness box, instead of being allowed to give videotaped testimony in a deposition, which reinforces my belief this is a motion intended to hassle the prosecution.

Oh: Defense also says they haven't received any notes at all from Obama's two-hour interview with the FBI. That won't do -- the defense gets anything material. I can't see how it was material to interview Obama at all and yet the contents of that interview are immaterial to the defense's case.

I imagine Blago's going for some kind of "everyone does it, this is the normally-accepted method of doing things in Chicago" defense, and Obama having a representative at these deal-making meetings would support that.

Except I don't know if something illegal can be made legal just due to common practice. Everyone knows this is how things are done in Chicago -- but that's not a defense to a corruption charge.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (89)
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

Obama, shockingly, says he's open to the idea of a VAT. He just wants to know all of his "options" before announcing the decision he actually made three years ago.

What's actually a little surprising is that CNBC catches him altering his previous bullshit campaign promises:

Obama’s VAT admission may explain his recent attempts to alter the terms of his central campaign promise. Twice in the past two weeks, Obama has claimed his middle class tax pledge only applied to income taxes rather than “any form of taxes”.

In his April 10 Weekly Radio Address, Obama said: “And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That’s another promise we’ve kept.” In a speech on the evening of April 15, Obama repeated the truncated promise: “And one thing we haven’t done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year — another promise that we kept.”

The two recent statements stand in stark contrast to Obama’s original promise: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Obama's "pledge" was always a lie, and the media repeated his promise incessantly, and uncritically, to sell Obama as a different kind of Democrat. They never inquired how it was he could spend so much more without bankrupting the country if he also did not raise taxes on the middle class -- a bit of easy math would have shown this as an impossibility, but, alas, the media was apparently told there would be no math in this election.

Obama originally planned -- and stated as much -- to tax the middle class by levying huge carbon taxes which would of course hit the middle class (and poor, for that matter). He confessed -- or rather proudly declared -- that his planned carbon taxes would "necessarily" cause electricity rates to "skyrocket" -- and again, the media simply ignored this, and again, simply insisted to the public that Obama's word was bond about not raising taxes. Even though he just announced that taxes would be raised in the form of "skyrocketing" electricity costs.

That was Obama's Plan A for raising taxes on the middle class -- taxing the living hell out of the motive force of our economy, energy, which every single human being and business uses in varying quantities.

His Plan B was the VAT.

This is not some kind of "readjustment" to "new realities." The man simply lied, and he did so deliberately. He always intended to raise taxes broadly on the middle class, either through Plan A or Plan B or some Plan C waiting in the wings. (Actually, he already has raised taxes on the middle class, of course; call those Plans Alpha through Epsilon.)

He gets to deliberately lie with impunity, however, and never be called what he is: Liar. Because he's special, you see.

But also because the media/political class knows in its heart that America must be a high-tax nation if it is to fulfill all its social-justice obligations, so they believe the public must be lied to for its own good.

Once again, we don't know what's best for us, and require leftist politicians and a leftist media to lie to us front, right, and center in order to deceive us into creating the "America that can be."

The GOP Lying Down on the Job: The GOP seems to have made a collective decision that they can't talk about this -- either it's racist to say a black man could possibly tell an untruth to get elected, or they are still scared of his personal popularity ratings (which aren't even that high).

But I know for a fact the media will never challenge Obama on his fundamental mendacity, and the only possible way to inject it into the country's consciousness is for the GOP to make a concerted effort at branding him a serial liar. The media will of course still flack for Obama, but they will at least be obliged to cover the controversy -- and note Obama's changing "promises."

I suppose they are poll-testing this, and finding it upsets people too much -- if they really have strong polling on this that indicates it's a loser, okay, I believe in polls.

Let me dispute those focus-group results. People like being "nice" and avoiding making decisions until they are absolutely forced too. Take NJ and the teachers' unions -- for 50 years the public has decide to be "nice" and offer no pushback whatsoever on outsized pension plans and benefits and regular-as-clockwork raises, because it's "nice" to be a sap and say nothing at all.

It's only now that the state is on the brink of fiscal calamity -- actually, eight feet beyond the brink -- that they are forced to engage the issue at all, and they're deciding it's better to be solvent than to be nice.

I think the same damn thing is going on in these focus-groups. (And I am sure they are saying "Oh it's not nice to say mean things, keep it on policy and "substantive issues." Don't make it personal.)

These focus groups always say that. People have this idea that they are all lofty-minded and want to just hear about "substantive issues." They lie to themselves about this every day. They just like hearing themselves burble "nice" sentiments. It proves they're, well, nice.

The GOP should get tough and get real. People are only saying that because they don't want to make a decision about Obama's character -- people like making as few decisions as possible, and if they can avoid making an unpleasant decision about someone's fundamental lack of honesty, they will.

But if you force them to make a decision -- well, the record is pretty clear about Obama's dishonesty. Yes, I'm sure the public would rather not be confronted with record of this clean and articulate young man's serial mendacity. And I'm sure they will be irritated at the GOP for injecting such a not-nice issue into the campaign, which is really an irritation about being forced to come to some kind of decision on the evidence.

But if forced to make that decision -- well, the evidence only goes one way.

Many independents -- not all, but many -- are simply not political-minded and not decisive. They are besmitted by the idea of being "nice." They are always on and on about the need for the parties to "come together and fashion common sense solutions," which is just another way of saying they want this stuff worked out behind-the-scenes so they they themselves are relieved of the obligation to intellectually engage with these issues and make a damned decision.

That's what a lot of these independents want, most of all -- they will vote for whatever party taxes their intellect the least. They want consensus compromises, because if it's a consensus, they don't have to choose. Politics just goes on in the background, niceand quiet, the way they like it.

A lot of the GOP's hesitancy in these matters is due to this impulse among many apolitical independents. The GOP tries to be nice and quiet because they know these wishy-washy decision-avoiders will actually tend to punish the party that demands they make a decision, and vote instead for the party that promises they won't have to decide. That they won't have to prioritize between any public good, they won't have to choose between higher spending and lower taxes, etc.

They are absolute chumps for the "you can have it all" non-solutions.

So I do understand the GOP's general trepidation about forcing these, uh, imbeciles to engage intellectually and make tough decisions. Subconciously they will feel anger about the party forcing their minds into action.

But sometimes, you really need to risk that, especially when you have the facts on your side. Yes, these simps will resent being forced to think about politics. And yes, that's bad for the GOP. But they will be more angry at the Democrats who lied to them.

And the only way to make them come to this not-nice conclusion is to say it loud and often.

The Irony: I love Frank Luntz's focus groups where these soft-brained imbeciles bleat over and over again about "substance" and other feel-good buzzwords, flattering themselves about being "independent thinkers."

In fact, among all cohorts, it's this sort of person who does the least thinking of all about politics. Leftists are full of hate and lies, but they are generally better informed than this sort of independent.

Over and over they pat themselves on the back for, basically, refusing to do any sort of political homework whatsoever, demanding the parties fashion miracle solutions that advance all priorities equally, even incompatible ones (we want both more government spending and lower taxes!), just so they can be disobligated from doing any thinking on the subject at all.

Anyway, I guess you have to play this game with these cretins (who are so convinced they are the real "thinkers" in the country), but you can't go too far down that road, because soft liberalism is what you get if you allow everyone to avoid accountability and decision-making and instead vote for vague nonsense and general feel-goodery.

A lack of clear prioritization favors liberalism; that's how it advances. Not so much by the public embracing its particulars, but by the soft-minded cretins just taking the path of least resistance all the time.

The path of least resistance is always to just spend money and tax other people -- including the next generation.

Oh: As usual, I need to distinguish between this sort of "fuzzy-independent" and an independent who is actually politically engaged, and makes decisions, but is independent for defensible reasons (neither party attractive, etc.).

I'm not talking about, say, someone thinks the GOP is a sell-out party and therefore is conservative but not Republican. Or someone who is libertarian, and can't embrace either party. Or someone who lacks a name-brand ideology, but just doesn't agree with the GOP on this and doesn't agree with the Democrats on that, etc.

About half of all independents are that kind of independent.

But the other half -- and I gotta be sexist here: A lot of this sort of independent are women -- are this sort of fuzzy-headed let's-just-all-agree-so-I-don't-have-to-choose sort of independent.

There's a big distinction between the two types on independent: One is independent by active intellectual choice -- an affirmative decision that neither party is close enough to their ideal to support -- and the other is entirely a passive non-choice, a simple refusal to prioritize and categorize enough to make a decision at all.

One type of independent, in other words, actively rejects both parties, while the other passively accepts both parties, and in fact passively accepts everything. More spending, less taxes. Want to win the war, but also want a plan to evacuate the troops. Etc.

I can insult this sort of independent freely because one thing I know about them is they ain't reading blogs. They're not really reading anything political whatsoever.

Except maybe those lame-ass "Why are Politics So Crazy?" sorts of articles in Time and Newsweek.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 1938 words, total size 12 kb.

Right now on all the cable nets.

A preview....

"I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you," he will say, according to the excerpts. "But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector."

The legislation would grant the federal government the power to seize teetering financial giants and dismantle them the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now can seize failing banks. It would create a new financial consumer regulator, would boost the strength and budget of the securities and exchange commission and would impose new transparency rules on the trading of derivatives, the complex financial instruments that helped bankrupt Lehman Brothers and nearly wipe out American International Group and Merrill Lynch.

I love that a guy who has never held a real job in the productive economy is telling people on Wall Street they are a danger to the prosperity of America. Unlike say, er, the federal government.

It seems the biggest danger here is not the bailout fund, the actions of the last few years speak louder than the $50 billion sitting around in another slush fund. It's the idea that the executive branch will have the unilateral power to seize and breakup a company that, as Obama just said, "falters".

I missed the start of the speech so I'm not sure if there were any 'shout outs' or acknowledgments of people who are 'in the house'.

NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose city depends on the revenue generated by the financial sector, is not thrilled with Obama's bashing of Wall St.

NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who, having worked in the real world, knows how bad some of this stuff is decided to side with her patron Chuck Schumer and keep her mouth shut. Always nice to see such profiles in courage in a political figure.

Now he's talking about the SEC writing rules to give shareholders more power in corporate elections. Here's a novel idea, if you don't like the rights share ownership gives you....don't buy the damn stock. Crazy, right?

This speech is the worst of Obama...bad policy married to cloying rhetoric. All his 'false choices', get beyond selfish politics, I'm not an ideologue, it's just common sense, BS designed to hide his extreme policies.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:03 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Got a photocopier in your home or office?
Chances are, it keeps a record of everything you have ever copied.

Nearly every digital copier built since 2002 contains a hard drive - like the one on your personal computer - storing an image of every document copied, scanned, or emailed by the machine.

In the process, it's turned an office staple into a digital time-bomb packed with highly-personal or sensitive data.

If you're in the identity theft business it seems this would be a pot of gold.

I highly recommend reading the linked article. It is a good bit of investigative journalism and you will be surprised at what they found. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

So many corporations, doctor's offices, police stations, attorneys, etc. use high tech procedures to protect your data, as well as low tech (shredding).

But now all your information can, and likely already has been, wheeled unknowingly out the back door at the end of their copiers' lease period, off to God-knows-where.

The day we visited the New Jersey warehouse, two shipping containers packed with used copiers were headed overseas - loaded with secrets on their way to unknown buyers in Argentina and Singapore.

Oh, well. I'm sure that's fine.

Posted by: LauraW at 08:02 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh Charlie, you've made a very powerful enemy.

"Washington is broken and Congress is already overflowing with politicians who need pollsters to tell them what to think. It certainly doesn't need another one. Now more than ever America needs leaders with the strength of conviction. That is why I am proud to endorse Marco Rubio," Cheney said in a statement.

"Charlie Crist has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted in Washington to take on the Obama agenda because on issue after issue he actually supports that agenda," Cheney said.

Rubio was once trailing Crist in polls, but now Rubio has taken the lead -- also clinching the endorsement of other big name Republicans including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former 2008 presidential candidate and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

There's also a swirl of rumors if Crist should or will run as an independent, although Crist so far has stayed course as a GOP candidate. He has until April 30 to decide.

"Lately it seems Charlie Crist cannot be trusted even to remain a Republican. I strongly urge him to either stay in the Republican Primary or drop out of the race. The only winners from an independent bid by Crist would be Barack Obama and Harry Reid," Cheney added.

Rubio still leads in a 3 way race but the gab is narrowing according to the Devil's official pollster.

If Florida Governor Charlie Crist leaves the Republican Party and enters the U.S. Senate race as an independent candidate, he will begin the campaign in second place.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of Florida voters finds that 37% would vote for GOP frontrunner Marco Rubio, 30% for Crist and 22% for the likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek. ThatÂ’s much closer than a month ago when Rubio had a 17-point advantage and Crist was in third place.

In a two-way race, both Rubio and Crist hold solid leads over Meek.

As Ace said yesterday, Crist's best day of polling will likely be on the day before he announces he's going independent. At the latest that day will be a week from today (April 30th is the deadline for Crist to drop out of the Republican primary and run as an independent).

Crist's biggest problem, aside form the lack of support, is the rationale for his campaign seems to be "But I want to be a Senator!". Rubio has a narrative, personal and policy, that is clearly more in tune with Republicans and the mood of the country overall. It's a bad year to be a careerist "go along, get along" hack.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:41 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Last November the Navy charged 3 SEALS with giving a terrorist a fat lip. They each elected to assert their innocence and face court martial to clear their names. The first of the three has been found not guilty.

The trial of three SEALs, the Navy's elite special forces unit, in the abuse case has outraged many Americans who see it as coddling terrorists.

A six-man jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois, not guilty of charges of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury spent two hours deliberating the verdict.

"It's a big weight off my shoulders," a smiling and composed Huertas said as he left the courthouse at the U.S. military's Camp Victory on Baghdad's western outskirts.

Huertas said he plans now to continue with his military career and "to go home and kiss my wife."

Huertas was the first of three SEALS to face a court-martial for charges related to the abuse incident and the verdict was a major blow to the government's case.

The piece of crap the SEALS are alleged to have smacked around was involved in the murder and subsequent burning of 3 contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

I'm sure John Murtha is spinning in his grave with outrage that these cold blooded murders got away with it. Also, no word from Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas.

Via @JustKarl

Posted by: DrewM at 06:35 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:38 AM | Comments (147)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Hump Day all.

Big Wheel Backflip

This is the kind of thing that kids talk about in hushed whispers. But Travis Pastrana, a two-time motocross champion, finally makes it on his 3rd attempt. And no his skin didn't turn inside out so I guess my cousin's best friend's brother was wrong about that.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:33 PM | Comments (945)
Post contains 523 words, total size 5 kb.