Richard Milhaus Obama's Coverup
Several articles on the subject of Obama's secrecy. The guy has NO RECORDS. And is keeping an inordinate amount of stuff secret. I think it would be interesting to know if the past drug use he's written about in his book is disclosed on his IL bar application and his St. Dept Security Clearance application.
Jim Geraghty (via LGF):
From the Chicago Sun-Times article on grants distributed by then-state-legislator Barack Obama.
(Records from 1997 to 2000 weren’t available.)
There’s a shock.
His state legislative office records may have been thrown out, he told us.
He’s never released a specific list of law clients, instead giving a list of all of his firm’s clients, numbering several hundred each year. His campaign will only confirm representation when the media comes to them with a specific case.
He won’t release his application to the state bar. He’s never released any legal or billing records to verify that he only did a few hours of work for a nonprofit tied to Tony Rezko.
He’s never released any medical records, just a one-page letter from his doctor.
Barack Obama seems to have a lot more in common with Richard Nixon than simply running to the center during the general campaign.
Permalink - Posted by directorblue
astuteblogger.blogspot.com
----------
Obama says he has no Illinois records
By Mike Baker and Christopher Wills
Associated Press
Attaway Obama, shred the stuff before any investigators looking into Rezko and company's crimes can subpoena it.
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Barack Obama, who's been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can't step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate. He says he hasn't got any.
"I don't have - I don't maintain - a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse - he left in 2004 - stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.
"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded."
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday that "Obama has a track record of leading the way on reform and disclosure," adding that "correspondence with state agencies and records of requests Obama made to them on behalf of his constituents are available to the public and have been accessed by our opponents and members of the news media."
Pressed for details, LaBolt said Obama did not keep any correspondence with the general public. Ditto for letters to or from state associations and lobbyists, memos on legislation and correspondence with Illinois state agencies. The campaign said Illinois agencies have copies of his requests for information or help, but accessing those records would involve contacting the agencies and asking them to comb though eight years of records to find correspondence from Obama.
Meanwhile, the campaign of John Edwards - Clinton and Obama's leading rival for the Democratic nomination - said Wednesday it will release the records from his single term representing North Carolina in the U.S. Senate.
"Senator Edwards will release the records from his Senate office and is committed to getting this done as quickly as possible," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He is currently in discussions with some North Carolina institutions to figure out where to best house the documents, and in the next few weeks we should have a better sense of when the release will begin."
Obama criticized Clinton during a debate in Philadelphia at the end of October, comparing her record on records to the Bush administration and saying the country had "just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history."
Clinton's papers from her time as first lady, including her work leading a controversial health care task force in her husband's first term, are held at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Clinton campaign has said that neither she nor husband Bill Clinton can do anything to speed the process of review at the National Archives that must precede the papers' becoming public.
Every president can, and usually does, exercise a right to withhold some documents for up to 12 years after leaving office. Bill Clinton wrote in a 2002 letter that he did not want the agency to release communications between the first lady and him for that period.
Obama hasn't always claimed there were no papers left from his time in the state Senate. Earlier this year, campaign spokesman LaBolt asked The Associated Press to narrow a request for records on whether Obama had ever urged clemency for a convicted criminal.
"You're asking us to do an extremely exhaustive search into every record we have from the U.S. Senate and state Senate offices," LaBolt said at the time. At the news conference in Iowa last week, Obama said he didn't "have a whole bunch of records from those years," but told reporters to "let us know" if there are "particular documents that you are interested in."
As for Edwards, the AP asked the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for records and papers from the Center on Poverty Work and Opportunity, the research center Edwards founded and ran after the 2004 campaign. The university acknowledged receiving the request, but would not comment on whether it would be granted.
Edwards left the poverty center last December, shortly before announcing his second bid for the White House. Campaign spokeswoman Murray said the campaign does not control the records, which belong to the university.
"As a public institution, the University of North Carolina has its own procedures, which we respect, and we hope they will release everything they can that is consistent with those policies," Murray said.
Wills contributed from Springfield, Ill. Associated Press writer Beth Fouhy contributed to this report from New York.
pantagraph.com
---------------------------------
Why Is Getting Obama To Disclose His Legal Clients Like Pulling Teeth?
Because they're crooks, maybe? Or is true he was a paper-shuffler who didn't do any real legal work?
Barack Obama has made some strange decisions regarding secrecy and records. His state legislative records are missing and may have been thrown out, there are questions about his answers to his application to the state bar (keep in mind the DSCC demanded George Allen release his in 2006), and he released a one-page letter from his doctor summarizing his medical history (contrasted with McCain allowing reporters to examine nearly 1,200 pages of health records). He and his former law firm say Obama only did a few hours of work for nonprofit firms connected to convicted donor Tony Rezko, but no records have been released to confirm that. (A Huffington Post blogger claims those records were released, but the link she cites doesn’t work.)
And The New York Times noted,
The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit.
But among the strangest is Obama’s refusal to specify who he worked for during his time in private practice with the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard (now known by only the last three names). In all of his statements of economic interests filed with the Illinois State government during his years as a state legislator, Obama listed every client of the firm. The result was a “disclosure” of hundreds of clients each year – from 247 in his 1997 filing to 448 in his 2002 filing – when he was only working for a handful of those.
Obama’s old boss, Judson Miner, said there were 30 cases to which Obama contributed in some way during his time there, full time for three years and seven years “of counsel.” How many clients could he have represented in those 30 cases over 10 years?
When the Chicago Sun-Times asked for a specific list of his clients in 2007, Robert Gibbs, communications director for the senator's presidential campaign, responded, “The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation. If there are specific questions about specific representations, we will attempt to answer them with the assistance of the firm.”
That sounds very authoritative, but it’s also wrong. Attorney-client privilege covers the fact of representation only in extremely rare cases.
Beyond numerous citations of this, in 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois*, which has jurisdiction over Chicago, ruled in Stopka vs. Alliance of American Insurers:
Fox & Grove's general assertion that the billing statements and time records should not be disclosed because they are privileged is unpersuasive. Cohen and Pincus attest the billing statements and attorney time sheets maintained by the law firm “would reveal the Alliance's motivation for seeking legal counsel and would reveal the nature of services provided by Fox and Grove to the Alliance in both this case and other matters.” Cohen Aff. ¶ 3; Pincus Aff. ¶ 3. “A client's motive for seeking legal advice is undeniably a confidential communication.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, Cherney, 898 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1990); In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d at 362. Accordingly, the substance of those meetings is privileged. However, billing statements and time records are not privileged insofar as they state when, where and for how long Fox & Grove attorneys met with Stopka or other Alliance officials.”
It's hard to argue that the fact of representation is covered by attorney-client privilege, but the billing records aren't. And fact of representation is exactly what the Sun-Times and other media organizations are asking for, not any legally sensitive material of any of Obama's discussions with them.
And indeed, the Obama campaign is willing to confirm Obama’s participation in a case when the media brings the client to their attention — suing on behalf of ACORN, a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, a trader who reported his bosses for fraud, a psychologist fired by Cook County, etc. But they've turned the simple question of "who did Obama work for?" into a guessing game - they'll only confirm or deny representation for that list of hundreds of firm clients.
Why?
* This post originally referred the 7th District Court as a whole, not the Northern Illinois District.
UPDATE: A reader who is an Illinois lawyer asks if the Obama campaign is citing the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. But while the rules prohibit disclosing "a confidence or secret of the client," I don't see anything that would cover the fact of representation. Note that the client's hiring of the firm is already disclosed in his statements of economic interests Obama files because he served in the state legislature; the question is, which clients did Obama actually do work for?
Are we to believe that every client of Obama's asked that he keep his work for them secret?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Another Northern District of Illinois case dealing with disclosing billing records, from a few years earlier:
“In their opposition brief, plaintiffs list six categories of documents they claim to be privileged. Category I consists of billing statements for legal services rendered on behalf of KRS by various attorneys, including a description of the type of service provided, the cost of such services, and the checks paying for such services. Such communications do not relate to confidential matters and are clearly unprivileged.” Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 106 F.R.D. 187 at 192 (N.D. Ill. 1986)
Recall Gibbs' statement, "The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation." Too bad this ruling indicates that the billing statements are not confidential or privileged, much less the fact of representation.
campaignspot.nationalreview.com
---------------------
Bama has confessed to illegal drug use in his books. Now if he didn't disclose that on his IL bar application or State Dept security clearance application, that would be a good reason not to release it, wouldn't it?
Memo to Obama: Missing Documents [UPDATE]
June 10, 2008 · 23 Comments
[UPDATE with new items at end]
Memo to: Sen. Barack Obama
Subject: Missing Documents
Now that you are the “presumptive nominee” for the Democratic Party, it’s important to unlock the file cabinet and disclose key documents that seem to be in hiding. Best to make your life an open book now rather than get hammered by the GOP and 527s for secrecy. They have already started, in case you have not noticed.
Missing documents to be released ASAP should include:
1. Birth certificate — read the Internet…There is a growing buzz about your reported refusal to release it. Put these silly rumors to rest, and publish immediately!
2. College records. It’s said that you refuse to release them, especially those from Columbia. Surely this must be inaccurate information. Please provide them right away in order to quash these pesky allegations!
3. State Senate records. Now this one is really ridiculous. Can you believe that some of your detractors are claiming that you are hiding records from your work as an Illinois State Senator? You must make a big to-do about publishing these public records; perhaps a highly promoted speech or press conference would do the trick.
4. Medical records. Is it true that you refuse to provide your medical records? Oh, this does not go over well with the American public because they will assume that you are hiding something important about your mental or physical well-being. These must be disclosed immediately!
5. Passport. Believe it or not, I have read on the Internet that you don’t want anyone to see your old passports. Surely you must realize that this, once again, looks like you’re hiding something. Were there places you visited that you wish to keep secret? Gosh, I hope not because this kind of thing will easily be uncovered by the 527s. Yikes, better get the info out in the public domain pronto!
I am probably missing something important in this list because there have been so many reports that you are secretive. Let’s call it a DRAFT MEMO for now. I’m sure that my faithful readers will alert me to any omissions.
END MEMO
UPDATE: I knew that my sharp readers would pick up on any omissions, and here are two:
6. Application to Illinois Bar
7. Application for Security Clearance to the U.S. State Department
There are Internet murmurs that you might not have disclosed previous drug use and any other potential criminal activity, as required, on these applications. Wow, the bloggers sure are resourceful, who would have thought those questions would come up? All the more reason to just get everything OUT now!
texasdarlin.wordpress.com
------------------------------------------
Disclosure of Drug Use (and other unlawful activities) is Required
June 9, 2008 · 9 Comments
Guest Post by FreeDem
Foreword: To fully understand the meaning of this story’s title, please read the entire post. There are some authorities other than the media which require full disclosure of drug use and other unlawful activities for anyone with Barack Obama’s resumé.
At some point in (or prior to) this 2008 presidential election year, there was a collective acquiescence to the idea that it’s no longer cool or even journalistically appropriate to explore a candidate’s prior use of drugs. Maybe that idea has its origins in GWB’s candidacy because society decided to accept that he was a “recovering alcoholic” and move on. These days, if you use cocaine when you’re young and decide to run for President a couple of decades later, no problem, you get a free pass. Or maybe that’s only a standard that applies to Barack Obama, time will tell.
In any event, there haven’t been any investigative stories (none that I’ve seen anyway) about Obama’s drug use. And as far as I can tell, the media has pretty-much accepted at face value his tale of youthful indiscretion described in the memoir “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” although some have politely questioned the authenticity of his “autobiographical” storylines and I’ve heard the occasional cynical analyst snicker about a 34-year old writing a “memoir.” But let’s give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that this passage is true:
“Junkie. Pothead. That’s where I’d been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind.”
I guess this means, using creative interpretation, that he smoked marijuana and snorted cocaine when he was young? Maybe I’ve missed subsequent clarifications from him but it seems that Obama has declared this topic off-limits and the MSM has abided. It’s mystifying to me that these questions have not really been explored:
1. What illegal drugs did Obama use?
2. How often, and with whom?
3. Were any secondary unlawful activities committed (e.g., drug dealing, driving under the influence, vandalism, theft, etc.)?
4. Was he ever arrested? If so, what were the charges and punishment, and is there a record?
5. How old was he when he stopped using illegal drugs? Did he stop using them all at once, or was it gradual over time?
6. Does he ever still use any illegal drugs, even occassionally?
And:
7. Did Obama fully disclose unlawful activities on appropriate applications as his legal and political careers advanced?
There appear to be at least two high-profile applications wherein Obama should have disclosed prior unlawful activity: the Illinois Bar application and the U.S. State Department security clearance application. There could be more; maybe a professional journalist could check that out?
Illinois Bar
Obama is an attorney and member-in-good-standing of the Illinois State Bar. I know from friends and associates that Bar applications are serious business. The one thing they insist on is honesty. If there’s something in your past to disclose, better to disclose it and deal with the consequences than to lie. That said, here are some of the relevant questions on the Illinois Board of Admissions application:
47 Have you ever been convicted of a felony or is there now pending against you any indictment, criminal information, or criminal complaint charging a felony offense? No Yes
If yes, complete Form 47 for each instance. In addition, you must submit with the paper portion of your application copies of the arresting officer’s report, complaint, indictment, trial disposition, sentence, and appeal, if any.
48 Have you ever, including when you were a juvenile, been formally or informally detained, restrained, cited, summoned into court, taken into custody, arrested, accused, charged, convicted, placed on probation, placed on supervision, or forfeited collateral in connection with any offense against the law or an ordinance, or accused of committing a delinquent act, other than traffic offenses set forth in response to questions 49 and 50 that follow? No Yes
If yes, complete Form 48 for each instance. In addition, you must submit with the paper portion of your application copies of the arresting officer’s report, complaint, indictment, trial disposition, sentence, and appeal, if any.
49 Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license? No Yes
If yes, complete Form 49 for each instance. In addition, you must submit with the paper portion of your application copies of the arresting officer’s report, the results of any blood or breathalyser tests, any alcohol or drug evaluations or assessments performed in connection with the charge, the order of disposition, and documentation substantiating successful completion of any sentence or condition imposed.
53 Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your answers to questions in this application? No Yes
If yes, Explain.
Note in particular that last catch-all question intended to prompt disclosure of anything that might be relevant. I’m told that the advice given to applicants is to “err on the side of disclosure” when applying to the Bar.
State Department Security Clearances
I assume that Obama already holds some kind of U.S.G. security clearance since he’s a Senator and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I assume he has the highest level clearance, “Top Secret,” but I have not verified that. (According to State.gov there are 3 levels.)
For the lowest level security clearance, “Confidential,” an applicant goes through a background check that:
…considers such factors as… unsatisfactory employment records; violations of the law; drug or alcohol abuse; a criminal record; extensive travel; education; residence and/or employment overseas; dual citizenship; foreign contacts; immediate family or relatives who are not citizens of the United States….
(Emphasis added.)
Source: U.S. Department of State.
Again, like the Bar Application, I understand that the State Department takes these investigations quite seriously and requires full and honest disclosure, and urges applicants to err on the side of disclosure.
In conclusion:
1. Given the job for which he’s applying (President and leader of the free world), it’s certainly appropriate to seek more details about Barack Obama’s drug use and criminal activity.
2. Did Obama complete high-level professional applications truthfully, and fully disclose all potentially relevant information about his past?
3. Would Obama qualify for a Top Secret security clearance today if he were an average applicant, given his background?
I leave it to the well-paid professional journalists to complete this investigation. My point is to just raise questions relevant to vetting a presidential candidate.
Cross posted at No Quarter
texasdarlin.wordpress.com
--------------------------------------------
WHAT'S BARACK OBAMA HIDING? ANSWER: A LOT!
OBAMA ISN'T JUST A PANDERING FLIP-FLOPPER - WHO HAS FLIP-FLOPPED ON DOZENS OF POSITIONS (SCROLL DOWN - 33 FLIP-FLOPS AND COUNTING!).
HE'S ALSO BEEN AMAZINGLY SECRETIVE ABOUT THINGS WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT A POLTICIAN BEFORE WE VOTE FOR HIM.
OBAMA HAS BEEN HIDING MANY THINGS FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY. (MORE HERE. AND HERE.)
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS FULL MEDICAL RECORDS.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS FULL ACADEMIC RECORDS, AND APPLICATIONS.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS TAX RETURNS.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS LAW FIRM RECORDS, HIS LAW FIRM BILLING RECORDS.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS STATE SENATOR RECORDS.
OBAMA HASN'T RELEASED HIS TRAVEL RECORDS - SO WE CAN CHECK AND SEE WHICH WRIGHT SERNONS HE ATTENDEDM AND WHICH HE MISSED.
OBAMA HASN'T EXPLAINED WHY HE WENT TO PAKISTAN AS A YOUNG MAN.
OBAMA HASN'T COME CLEAN ON AYERS.
OBAMA HASN'T COME CLEAN ON THE SETTLEMENT HE MADE WITH HIS FIRST LITERARY AGENT JANE DYSTEL FOR BREAKING HIS CONTRACT WITH HER.
OBAMA IS HIDING MORE THAN ANY CANDIDATE EVER.
WHY IS HE HIDING SO MUCH?
THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION:
HE THINKS THE TRUTH WILL HURT HIS CHANCES.
LIKE THE FACT THAT HE'S ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT POLITICIAN.
VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
Permalink - Posted by Reliapundit
astuteblogger.blogspot.com |
