The Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/FISA Democratic? Party is trying to force feed an unqualifed, race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating Chicago, friend to slumlord, flip-flop-flim-flam man, on the Democratic grassroots and later on the American people.
What the Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/FISA Democrats refuse to admit is that Americans still don’t know anything about Chicago Obama and the little we do know disgusts us. This is why the cover of the current New Yorker magazine resonates. The cover does not include references to Rezko or bitter clingy small town Americans but the image (particulary “earings” Michelle) will once again remind us that:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
* * *
The main reason American don’t know anything about the real Barack Obama is that (as the satirizing New Yorker might phrase it) Obama bin lyin’. When Obama is not lying Obama bin hiding.
The National Review last week echoed what we have been writing about for more than 15 months but Big Media has refused to discuss: Why Is Getting Obama To Disclose His Legal Clients Like Pulling Teeth?
The simple answer to the National Review question is that Obama has plenty to hide. Obama does not want to disclose his law firm client list nor his state senate records because it could be revealed that Obama received and ignored plenty of constituent complaints from angry, Rezko oppressed tenants (we’ll discuss this aspect below).
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.)
Like George W. Bush Obama will hide what needs hiding. Obama wll attempt to exhaust Americans looking for honest answers and only then release the most innocuous crumbs of information while still hiding what needs hiding. The goal is to exhaust those who want answers.
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.”
Hide, hide, hide. Run, run, run.
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.”
Obama is hiding the most basic fact about his life. In 2007 we demanded that Obama’s billing records be released:
Obama worked for a politically connected law firm in Chicago. Obama, while at the law firm (and later) helped pump tens of millions of dollars – government dollars – to his friend and benefactor Rezko via Rezko’s company Rezmar. The tens of millions of dollars in government subsidies were for housing projects Rezko (via Rezmar) was involved in. Neither Rezko, nor his partners in the housing venture had any prior experience to in the housing field – but Rezko/Rezmar still got tens of millions in government money.
Some of the money in government subsidies went to buy tenements in Obama’s state senate district. Rezko treated the mostly African-American tenants with contempt. No heat, no hot water in at least one particulary cold winter. Rezko claimed he did not have money to provide the heat and hot water – but Rezko did have enough money to donate to Obama.
What value did Obama’s “community organizer” ties have if Obama did not know tenants in his state senate district were freezing in the Chicago winter?
If Obama did not know what was going on in his own senate district why didn’t he know?
Obama himself says the question is should he have known? Obama has never answered that question. Should state senator Barack Obama have known about his freezing constituents?
If Obama did not know what was going on in his small state senate district, in tenements his benefactor and slumlord friend Rezko owned, why is Obama ready to lead an entire, much larger country?
Did Obama know about his freezing constituents? Did Obama turn a blind eye, ignoring the freezing constituents and protecting his slumlord friend and fundraiser? Who was Obama really representing? [snip]
Has anyone in Big Media/Big Blogs interviewed the freezing tenants to discover if they did in fact complain to state senator Obama? [snip]
Did the former Obama law firm (also investors in Rezko schemes) ever turn over to the Chicago newspapers the (gasp!) billing records they promised (then reneged on)? These (gasp!) billing records would help clear up exactly what work Obama performed for Rezko/Rezmar. Are these (gasp!) billing records those Obama cannot seem to locate anywhere in his files?
Is Obama’s former law firm, hiding from the truth? Some of the partners in the law firm were also investors in Rezko schemes? Did Obama invest in Rezko schemes?
More National Review:
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.
National Review later updated on what Obama’s bin hiding:
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.
Big constitution flim-flam man Obama needs a refresher course on basic ethics and case law. But we have been saying that for a long time. We said it in Obama Fights the Facts . We also said it in The Case of the Missing State Senator
What relationships did Obama build during his “community organizer” days that proved useless when he became state senator, and failed to keep him in touch with the community?
What was Obama doing in his plush state senator office that kept him too busy to know that these “struggling families” were without heat “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997″?
If Obama with all his “community organizer” experience did not know what was happening in his small district office in Chicago, how in blazes does anyone think he will respond to the needs of an American electorate that numbers in the hundreds of millions?
What was Obama doing in his state senate office while his constituents suffered due to now indicted slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Obama’s friend of 17 years? Well, Obama was busy writing letters to get even more government money for his friends, including Rezko.
Who did Obama take care of and who was he busy working for – his constituents or his now indicted friend Rezko who helped Obama buy a magnificent heated house?
We wrote about it in Obama – Turning Pages, Part II
Obama at the time was a State Senator representing the mostly African-Americans who lived in the Rezko owned tenements. These residents of the Rezko owned tenements presumably contacted elected officials when they found themselves living in substandard housing and freezing in the winter. Where was Obama with consitutent services? Obama should have known and it strains credulity to think he did not know. Obama had helped Rezko obtain government subsidies for these tenements and we presume some type of due diligence was performed by Obama in which he would uncover the nature of the Rezko housing.
Does anyone doubt that Obama bin flip-flopping?
Does anyone doubt that Obama bin flim-flamming?
Does anyone doubt why (as the New Yorker might satirically state) Obama bin lying and Obama bin hiding?