Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Blagojevich Prosecution Delayed To Help Obama's Campaign?

Story here.

Would Barack Obama be the president-elect if the Blagojevich arrest took place prior to the November election? That's the question attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel is now asking.

Schlussel says federal sources with ties to Chicago tell her U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had enough evidence to prosecute Blagojevich in June, but decided to wait until after the election to charge him so as not to hurt Barack Obama's White House chances. Schlussel contends Fitzgerald's alleged decision to postpone the arrest of Blagojevich was inappropriate.


"[W]e all know that he went after Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, even though Libby was not the source of the leak for Valerie Plame -- and yet he didn't after the source of the leak, Richard Armitage," she points out. "Here [with the Blagojevich scandal] we have a different case of his selective justice, where he waited."

And that, says the columnist, should be a "very serious concern to everybody" because Fitzgerald is a U.S. attorney. "And I think this is indicative of the way he conducts justice everywhere," she adds.

I agree with Ms. Schlussel that the "liberal" media will help Obama emerge from the scandal pretty much unhurt thereby.

After all, the liberal media did bend over backwards to get him elected, by covering up all his negatives to whatever extent they could. And when non-Leftist messengers would speak up with the inconvenient (and electorally damaging) facts about Obama, what did the corporate media do? They were all too happy to broadcast hateful utterances by drug-stupored Hollyweird morons against Sarah Palin instead. Remember all those media reports of Hollyweird asshats saying horribly prejudiced, hateful things about Sarah Palin for no reason at all, other than they hated her because she was a little bit different than they? With all the hate-spitting celebrity idiots on the news all the time saying nasty stuff about Ms. Palin and her family, who ever noticed the little, tiny bit of negative information about Obama that might have quietly squeaked through somehow?

Reporting negative nonsense opinions coming from brainless actors who hate Republicans, whilst ignoring much of the preponderance of facts about Obama's disturbing associations and connections... that's what the media did to help Obama. They also were happy to report whenever celebrities said worshipful, gushily praising, if unfounded, stuff about him.

Democrats do enjoy a mainstream, corporate media who tend to downplay or even cover up (refuse to report to the People), if possible, negative information about them.

On the other hand, if a Republican farts or picks his nose, the whole world will know about it... and don't you think, that if it was discovered that President Bush was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office playing "hide the cigar" with a buxom brunette bimbo intern in a blue dress, he'd have been forced to resign in disgrace, whereas when it was, in reality, a Democrat, the Democrat became a hero to the Left and the corporate media, and still is seen as such by same?

I don't recall Clinton getting bashed very much at all by the media and Hollyweird when he led wars on Iraq and Serbia, by the way. Wonder how come? Because he's a Leftist, a Democrat? Ok for a Demmy to attack Iraq, but intolerable for a Republican? Why the double standard?