Posted by Curt on 2 April, 2008 at 7:00 am. 1 comment.

The Rezko trial is moving along swiftly, and doing great damage to the defendant it seems:

Star witness for the prosecution Stuart Levine described a meeting he had with two of Blagojevich’s top fundraisers and advisers — Rezko and a roofing contractor named Chris Kelly — at which they asked him to arrange for an investor with business before Levine’s board either to pay a $2 million bribe or raise $1.5 million for Blagojevich’s campaign.

Levine’s a less-than-credible witness, so to bolster the believability of his account, prosecutors played a phone conversation between Levine and another alleged schemer named Bill Cellini Robert Weinstein that occurred shortly after Levine’s meeting with Rezko and Kelly. During the conversation, which the feds recorded without Levine or Cellini’s Weinstein’s knowledge, the two of them discuss Rezko, Kelly and the scheme to extort the investor, a Hollywood producer and financier named Thomas Rosenberg.

Stephen Spruiell notices something similiar in Blagojevich and Obama. They both promised change and break from the past:

Blagojevich was supposed to represent a new day in Springfield, and therein lies a lesson for those Americans enamored of Barack Obama and his message of change. Illinois voters have some recent experience electing a young, ambitious, hard-charging Democrat who promised them a break from the past. Last November, over half of them said they would vote to recall him.

Just yesterday Obama was caught lying about a questionnaire. Chicago politics never changes, not even with the messiah:

During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign.

The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.

Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire.

They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.”

But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago non-profit group that issued it. And it found that Obama – the day after sitting for the interview – filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes adding to one answer.

His response…..just because my handwriting was on it doesn’t mean I looked at it! Un-freakin-believable:

Through an aide, Obama, who won the group’s endorsement as well as the statehouse seat, did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved – or even read – the latter questionnaire.

“Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires – a staffer did – and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, in an emailed statement. “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views. His eleven years in public office do.”

How does he know it didn’t reflect his views if he didn’t read it? And if it did NOT reflect his views why then didn’t he change the radical left views that he says he doesn’t have now?

So what were Obama’s positions in 1996, according to the questionnaire that bears his handwriting?

  • Opposed to parental notification on abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
  • Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position he denied ever having.
  • Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.

Those positions won’t even fly with a large number of Democrats, let alone in a general election.

The guy is nothing but an empty suit. He says he never heard the racist minister spout his hateful rhetoric which defys belief! 20 years in the pews and he never heard it….baloney. He says he never read or approved a questionnaire that spelled out his very leftist views, but when shown proof that his handwriting was on it, he says…well, maybe, but I just jotted some notes down. Another statement that defies belief. Rezko and Auchi, Odinga, Ayers, The New Black Panther Party, La Raza, Farrakhan, Mr. Wright and now the the homophobe Rev. James T. Meeks.

Just one more politician. Someone who can be devious when the need arises, vague when it suits him, and a liar when all else fails.

>