Sen. Obama Dodges Disclosure

[bigtree]

Sen. Obama has not released any records from his time in the state senate:

Obama: ‘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 added, ‘It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time.’ CBS, 11/14/07

Obama: 'I had one staff person that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate. I don't have the Barack Obama state Senate library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years.' Chicago Sun Times, 11/10/07

Sen. Obama touts his new decision to disclose his U.S. Senate earmarks but he refuses to release all earmarks from his time in the state senate:

Obama has been silent on non-federal earmarks he secured while serving in State Senate. “Sen. Barack Obama is open about the pet projects he's tucked into federal legislation, but it's a different story when it comes to the extra spending he added to state budgets while serving in the Illinois Legislature…. When Obama served in the state Legislature, from 1997 until late 2004, it was routine for money to be added to the annual budget for lawmakers to dole out. In most years, this was done without any public record of which legislator was sponsoring which grant, leaving no way to tell how Obama used his share of the money. AP, 3/13/08

Sen. Obama will not release the name of the broker who managed his controversial 'semi-blind' trust:

Obama refuses to name the UBS broker that purchased the stocks in his 'quasi-blind' trust. "Obama had about $100,000 he wanted to invest in 2005. The money was a portion of the $1.2 million he got from a book contract. He said Wednesday he decided the $100,000 could be put into something "more high risk" and asked a friend to recommend a stock broker. That friend was donor George W. Haywood, who held what the New York Times called "major" positions in the two stocks Obama ended up owning, Skyterra and AVI BioPharma…. Obama declined to name the UBS broker." Sweet column, Chicago Sun-Times, 3/8/07

Sen. Obama will not disclose what cases he worked on that involved Tony Rezko or his companies:

Obama campaign has not released which cases Obama worked on involving Rezko/Rezmar. "Asked what Rezko cases Obama worked on, Miner (a firm partner) told the Sun-Times, 'We’ll put together a list of the cases he worked on involving Rezko/Rezmar in the next day or two.' That was March 13 2007. He never provided the information." Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07


http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6742

[ossman]

1. Where are your tax returns? Then shut the f up.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Why change the subject?

Tax returns aren't public records. Why is Obama hiding his records? What's he hiding?

[Cali_Democrat]

5. I love you monkey funk!!!

Your a great guy!!. Carry on!!!

[bigtree]

10. we likely won't 'shut up'

until he releases ALL of his records, including his returns from before 2000. He started this game. Now he's going to be held to his own standard.

[JoFerret]

78. Don't you just love the silencing

.

[Bluebear]

16. How hopeful! How unifying!

[buff2]

7. What ever he is hiding will come out soon

You know the repukes are digging furiously as we speak. :hi:

[anamandujano]

11. Exactly, they don't sit and wait for something to fall into their laps.

[BeatleBoot]

MonkeyFunk- They either tell you to shut up like Bill O'Reilly or put you on Ignore or "Let it Sink"

Anything but deal with the subject at hand if they don't like it.

It's the 3 pronged strategy from the Obama's Supporters Handbook.


Here is an example from Chapter 3: "Avoiding Reality"


"When someone asks a perfectly legitimate question that might embarass Mr. Obama, take one of the following positions..."

[Indenturedebtor]

29. You said it all in your response

"Why change the subject?
Posted by MonkeyFunk
Tax returns aren't public records. Why is Obama hiding his records? What's he hiding?"

Um yeah public records. Exactly. There is no confidentiality for State Senators. Do the research yourself, or get the lazy reporters who asked the question to do it.

As far as I know "Executive Priviledge" doesn't apply to anyone but the Pretzledingus. Oh and to Hillarys tax returns. :shrug:

This is silly.

[bilgewaterbill]

36. How do you hide public records?

[merh]

51. What exactly is he supposed to disclose?

Please explain.

Does he have some secret list or past? :sarcasm:

[Yes We Did]

77. You guys are so funny. You really are.

I mean, you aren't even trying to hid the hypocrisy any more... You have just decided to embrace it.

[Maat]

3. Amen (n/t).

[ossman]

4. Where are the Hillary 1st lady papers? ALL of them?

[bigtree]

14. same place the Bushs' papers are

she will release those when we get a law requiring ALL former presidents to disclose, not just our Democratic one.

[ossman]

18. Thats your defense? Bush did it too? wow.

[bigtree]

79. the defense is that there's no point in the Clintons unilaterally surrendering theirs

while the Bushes' enjoy the protection of the shielding law.

[Maat]

20. Good question (n/t).

[bigtree]

6. 20 years of Clinton's returns already released, more in a few days

Where are Obama's from before 2000?

[ossman]

8. a few days? hahahahahaha

[gabeana]

12. This is funny

the fake questioning of Obama
The key here is to see the taxes since the Clinton's left the whitehouse

[bigtree]

right. When she promised. Deal with that. You can't make it happen by bullying and ridicule

She'll release them when she's damn well ready. And, there's not a thing you can do but carp and whine.

[ossman]

24. you are insane dude.

Sooo "She'll release them when she's damn well ready. And, there's not a thing you can do but carp and whine."


But Obama MUSt release his State Senate records? Take another hit off the doobie.

[Zhade]

76. Don't insult herb by associating it with delusional assholes from the Liars for Clinton KKKlub.

Herb is actually worth something!

[bigtree]

80. who started this game?

your guy. Now he's going to swim in it for a while. Deal with it.

[mckeown1128]

9. I need a link...

show me a link that states the Illinois state senators have records to show??? If you don't have a link the STFU.

[jefferson_dem]

27. This is one of the stupidest red herrings i've seen in a while.

Of course, state legislators don't maintain detailed records of their business.

Hillary's followers are simply trying to distract from her bankrupt opposition to transparency. People aren't as stupid as they think. What's Hillary hiding?

[Raejeanowl]

65. They Don't?

Funny, all the state legislators I ever worked for maintained detailed records. Why would Obama be different?

[mckeown1128]

71. proof link... anything to back it up other than....

you an anonymous person over the web???

[scheming daemons]

19. What's more relevant? Returns from 2000 to NOW, or from prior to 2000?

You are pathetic.


*YOUR* candidate is refusing to release information. Barack Obama *IS* releasing information.


Hillary has released NOTHING. She (AND YOU) have no standing to ask anyone else for transparency.


Hillary is the most opaque candidate in history.

[jefferson_dem]

30. I pity Hillary's supporters. Can you even imagine having to defend *that*?

They deserve better than their fucked-up candidate can offer.

[TheDoorbellRang]

26. Do they include Clinton's returns 2000 thru 2007?

Do you know what site they're listed at? I didn't know these were out.

[murielm99]

55. Is the OP running for public office?

If not, you are the one who should shut the f up.

[Mezzo]

92. Where are HIS Fucking Tax Returns? and eight years os state senate records. nt

[JimGinPA]

13. Rove 101 - Accuse Your Opponent Of Whatever You Are Doing Or Have Done...

NAFTA in Ohio, transparency now. Next Mrs. Clinton will accuse Obama of lying about snipers in Bosnia. You people are a fuckin' trip.

:eyes:

[bigtree]

25. apparently HYPOCRISY isn't in the Obama lexicon

[Raejeanowl]

66. Can We Simply Hold Obama To Similar Standards?

Or does he get a "pass" when he is being deceitful about bringing any new way of politicking to the people?

[scheming daemons]

15. A HILLARY supporter posting about OBAMA'S LACK OF EXPOSURE?? AYFKM?!

Obama has released more information IN EVERY POSSIBLE AREA than Hillary has.... Hillary and her supporters have NO STANDING WHATSOEVER to call for more exposure from Obama.


Not until they release ONE FUCKING PIECE OF INFORMATION on her.

[bigtree]

21. YOUR CANDIDATE ISN"T IMMACULATE

get over it.

[scheming daemons]

34. My candidate isn't hiding his tax returns.... yours is.....

...

[bigtree]

81. He's 'hiding' his returns from before 2000

He needs to come clean.

[Dogmudgeon]

17. Looks like you touched a live nerve with that one

That's a whole lot of "STFU" from The Movement.

--p!

[bigtree]

22. love it.

tired of the stones thrown from his glass house

[ProSense]

31. You haven't touched a nerve. It's ludicrous. When is she going to ask Obama

why he hasn't lied about his experience?

Where are Hillary's tax returns for 2000 -2006, her earmark and donor lists, and the donor list for the Clinton library?

When she produces the information, then she can go back to making demands. Until then, she's full of **it!

[grasswire]

50. foul-mouthed bunch, aren't they? (eom)

[gateley]

23. They both have things they'd prefer not be made public.

But it'll all come to light whether they want it to or not.

Hillary was stalling on the tax records, it seems like Obama may be stalling on other stuff.

Politics.

[bigtree]

28. politics

some truth among the fun and games. refreshing.

[Autumn]

32. You sure do stir it up

and you do it so damn good.:evilgrin:

[JBoy]

33. Obama's State Senate records are guarded by sniper fire

Could you send Hillary to go get them? I understand she has the required experience.

[anamandujano]

46. Actually, it was a shredder that took care of the files.

[enchilado]

35. Breaking (ABC News): Obamas Gave Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income to Charity

This is why politicians don't like to release their tax returns!

Bloomberg News crunches the numbers on Sen. Barack and Michelle Obama's newly-released tax returns and finds:

"The Obamas' donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obamas-gave-les.html

[scheming daemons]

38. And you know this because OBAMA RELEASED HIS RETURNS.....

...Hillary supporters have no standing to criticize this until she releases her returns.


NONE.

[jefferson_dem]

39. That ShillaryTroll idiot got t'stoned in a flash.

Not worth the hassle. :hi:

[JimGinPA]

42. Another Record Tied nt

[bigtree]

90. bullshit. we'll question ANYTHING we want and we'll SEE where it stands

deal with it.

[zulchzulu]

48. $370+ a day on average is not too shabby from the Obamas

We'll see about the Clintons...they are HIDING something.

[scheming daemons]

37. A Hillary supporter saying Obama dodges disclosure is like ....

... Al Capone asking Elliot Ness about his business dealings.

[Drachasor]

40. Given there was no public record, I am not sure any record was kept at all

Asking for non-existent records seems a bit silly to me.

And that website in general seems to be full of a lot of garbage accusations that have already been disproven.

Given how much he has disclosed, I think Obama is definitely doing a better job than any of the other candidates as well.

Looking over the lawfirm issues, the Hillhub seems to wildly inflate the issue, beyond the newspaper's own statements (which don't seem entirely supported by evidence as far as I saw).

Overall the things here don't seem to actually be issues.

[madrchsod]

41. they are either non issues

or issues that have been answered. the senate in the state of illinois did`t keep records for those years in question and senators are not required to.

earmarks are why we vote people into local,state and federal positions. why in the hell would we waste our time and money if they did`t reward us?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

54. what has he disclosed?

the guy is a fucking blank screen

[Drachasor]

56. National Senate Earmarks (more than Hillary), tax returns from 2000 to 2006

Hillary has released no tax returns since the year 2000 and has consistently delayed on their release.

[Raejeanowl]

67. You Would Be Guilty Of Assuming

That the candidate was telling the truth about the records being "non-existent."

[Drachasor]

73. Granted, but generally we assume someone is innocent until proven guilty -- and Obama is honest

Certainly much more honest than the vast majority of politicians out there.

This is also quite a stark difference from Hillary's position on her tax returns, which definitely do exist but which she refuses to release -- well, she'll wait until they won't make a difference in PA it seems. That's very suspicious behavior to me.

[Catherina]

43. LMAO! Bigtree dodges Tuzla and tries to change the subject

Seriously, how did it feel to spin for Hillary with 2 days worth of weak shit only to get thrown under the bus with "I was tired, I mispoke"?

[bigtree]

82. Only Obama supporters are still even remotely interested in that stupid game

But, if Obama wants to keep playing . . . glass houses . . .

[tabasco]

44. Bullshit! More lies from the Hillary drones.

Fact Check: Obama's State Senate Records Are Publicly Available

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/14/fact_check_obamas_state_senate.php

I can't believe a Hillary supporter has the audacity to screech about DISCLOSURE when Hillary hasn't disclosed anything except some redacted White House records! You have got to be shittin' me! This is a debate you will LOSE.

[Raejeanowl]

69. Only The Official Records Are There

Those were never the ones at issue.

[krawhitham]

45. Well that's the pot calling the kettle black

[zulchzulu]

47. Let's see the Clintons pony up with their tax returns FIRST... do they need Kinko's directions?

Why is it taking so long? What are they hiding?

Obama released his tax records. Now it's their turn.

We're waiting...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. fucking liar...he's covering his Rezko ass .. and who knows what else

he is a fucking "blank screen"....

[ProSense]

53. No, it's Hillary who's a "fucking liar." Rezko is on trial. Where are Hillary's tax returns? n/t

[anigbrowl]

52. Desperation takes hold...

Take the Rezko bit at the end of the OP...that information is out there. It's been posted on DU before. Team clinton could surely find it.

The case Obama worked on which Rezmar was involved with was a nonprofit called Central Woodlawn. That's the one where he appeared in court as a part a suit over heating, which has been referred to so many times. Obama detractors like to suggest that people were freezing to death or suchlike. In fact, the heating issue was part of a code violation suit brought against Central Woodlawn/Rezmar. The case didn't go to trial, but was dismissed around 2 months later after an inspection found the code violations had been rectified.

But weren't people freezing in their homes during a brutal Chicago winter? Hardly. The code violation charges were brought in September.

Now don't tell me that Team Clinton doesn't know or can't find that information. I looked it all up on Google months and months ago (I'm typing from memory here). So why are they making out that it's somehow being kept secret?

[AGirl]

57. But Clinton is EVILlLLLLLL!@@$@$a@#2

[JoFerret]

87. She IS EVIL

she is so evil. and i must say this just once or i will vote for mccain so there i hate hillary so much she is despicable and a liar and she keeps posting nasty things about our next PRESIDENt all over the du internet cos she is a liar and i hate her and did i say she is a liar and omigod she is not fit to even worship at pastor's church and she is sooo ugly

[hulka38]

58. There are two major Chicago newspapers, the Tribune and the Sun-Times.

They have looked at Obama's dealings from top to bottom, inside and out and they're still looking. The Tribune and the Sun-Times have been all over the Rezko thing. In fact the Trib broke the land deal story in 2006. As Chicagoans know only too well, the Tribune is and has always been a very conservative newspaper. The Sun-Times is about sports and displaying an unflattering picture under a gigantic scathing headline ripping whatever local politician they're targeting that day. It's a target rich environment. I can assure you they aren't pulling any punches on their hometown boy, and they shouldn't. And I'm not just talking about Rezko, they're looking into everything. On March 14, 2008 Obama met with the editorial boards of both papers and answered all questions posed to him. He admitted it was a mistake to have dealt with Rezko and admitted it was a lapse in judgment. By all accounts, the papers said he gave detailed and thorough answers to every question they asked and they were satisfied that his explanations were plausible and his answers were truthful. This was March 14, 2008, after all of the dates of the clips of articles that you've cut and pasted from Hillary's attack website. These are non stories at this point. Obama has done nothing illegal. If there's something there, you will here it first from one of these two papers.
To sum it up, you have nothing on Obama. Nothing, nada, zero.

[DUyellow]

61. you said it.... you have nothing on Obama. Nothing, nada, zero.

[bigtree]

84. He's still dribbling out information about his close association with the slum lord

like the $150,000 in money Rezko raised for him that he forgot to mention until a few days ago, and the fact that he and Rezko did a 'walk through' of the property in question, rather than the distant relationship to the purchase of the property Obama had been claiming.

[boppers]

59. Where's the proof that all of his WMD's have been destroyed?

After all, unless the papers are released that prove otherwise, Obama obviously has dangerous WMD's.

GOP: Bringing you a total absence of logic since 1854. Maybe it's a math thing.

[Raejeanowl]

70. We Have Now Gone From Ludicrous Response To Plaid n/t

[boppers]

74. Ludicrous Questions get what kind of answer?

:evilgrin:

I didn't think the fishing expeditions of Whitewater were reasonable, nor the fishing expeditions of Iraq's records, nor the fishing expeditions into what Obama was doing on a particular day at 3pm as a state senator.

I'm pretty sure this is Clinton's team freaking out over her releasing daily White House records to demonstrate her "experience", and only realizing later that they're being used against her.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. fill in the blanks here.....

the "gavel to gavel" links are great and some audio eviedence introduced by procutor are available too

didn't Obama say in that 80 minute interview with Tribune reporter last week say, "he talked to Rezko daily"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-storygallery,0,1295001.storygallery

[hulka38]

62. I don't know, you tell me.

What do you got?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

89. Obama is a liar

[Raejeanowl]

63. All Obama Or The Media Needs To Do

Is ask that "one staff person" where the boxes of records went, huh? I presume he remembers that person's name,(or can get it from the Secretary of State's office if his memory really needs refreshing), and was damn sure things were in order and he had what he wanted when he left there. And someone also knows what went to/from state and U.S. district offices, the Obama law office, and what arrived in the U.S. Senate.

Not the active constituent case files he would have left for his successor (although some of those might be very interesting).

Not the archival files that his state legislative services office and assigned committee(s) would have kept anyway (Obama's sets being duplicates).

The OTHER files that any competent politician always takes with him, because they are a treasure trove of information and resources. And that includes his schedules, diaries, contact lists. Not to mention position papers, general correspondence, drafts and background on his legislative efforts, topical research, and so on. The files he doesn't want his opponents and the MSM fishing around in forensically, and possibly for a reason. The files he's been denying the existence of and playing word games over for even longer than Clinton's been delaying releasing her taxes. The "I don't have any files at all but tell me what you're looking for and I'll see what I can do" files.

I've said it before, but I don't believe for a moment that Obama literally had only one staff person year-round. Oh, he might have had one full-time person paid for by mandatory state personnel funding, but this would not have been his only assistance. There is such a thing as paying additional staff from discretionary funding, stipended internship programs, and volunteers, to name but a few common alternatives.

Would Obama prefer to suggest he wasn't competent enough to know and manage what was happening with his papers?

[hulka38]

64. Again I say

waddayagot?

[Citizen Kang]

68. Hillary won't disclose her earmarks.

And won't release her tax returns.

But I'm sure your cool with that.

[Lucinda]

72. Thanks bigtree!

[bigtree]

86. .

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. When Clinton produces her tax returns you might have a valid complaint.

Until then I'd suggest dropping this particular subject.

[bigtree]

85. I don't have to drop anything. She still has 20 years of returns released so far to his -6-

he's behind.

[scheming daemons]

88. Obama: most recent (and relevant) 6 years... Clinton: Nothing since 2000

Sorry.... What she was making back in the 90's is not as relevant as NOW.


Obama has provided the *NOW*. That's disclosure.


Clinton is hiding the *NOW*. That's secrecy.



Your candidate loses... and loses BADLY... on this issue. Please keep pushing the "disclosure" issue... it only highlights a negative for your candidate.

[bigtree]

91. aww. Hope you're not too disappointed after she does release them when she said she will.

Your candidate has his own past financial associations to worry about which he won't be able to explain away by just pointing to Hillary Clinton's tax returns. Glass houses.