Hugh Hewitt asks a good question – Was the dog that didn’t bark (Barack Obama) under oath?



The Dog That Didn’t Bark!

Thoughts On Blagobamarama


I got many e-mails after yesterday’s show pointing out how extraordinary it is for the president-elect and two key staffers to be interviewed in a massive criminal investigation into corrutpiton and not to have had the interviews announced for many days or basic follow-up questions asked and answered. This attempt to massage the story might work in illinois or during a presidential campaign when the MSM is blocking for you, but it won’t work over a four year term when careers have to made and remade by media climbers.  There’s always a young Woodward who will go where there’s a story.

Hugh talks about the news in the release of the Obama team’s report on the Rahm Emanuel – Blago scandal with National Review Campaign Spot blogger Jim Geraghty.

Listen here: (Jim Geraghty doesn’t come in until after halfway point, but interview is well-worth the listen.)

EXCERPTS (This is a partial transcript which I transcribed myself. It is incomplete and inexact, but I believe I’ve included all the pertinent details.)

HH: The PE was himself interviewed by the office of the US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on December the 18th. Valerie Jarrett, one of his most trusted advisers, on the 19th. And Rahm Emanuel on the 20th.

HH: Jim Geraghty, it’s astonishing that this is being reported the way that it is. This is a BO staff document saying nothing was done wrong here. I would be stunned if anything else came out, because no one’s been fired obviously. But do you think the media is just gonna swallow this and say, “Okay, that’s over.”

JG: I fear they may. They really shouldn’t. Our friends on the left would never have accepted a Bush administration investigation that clears itself of wrongdoing.

HH: The obvious question that was not asked of Joe Biden that indicts the media around him. It’s the most obvious question of all. I don’t know if it’s occurred to you yet.

Was the PE under oath?

This is the most important question because if he’s under oath it is a significant issue every single thing he said. Ditto Valerie Jarrett. Ditto Rahm Emanuel.

But it’s the first question a serious reporter asks. Was the PE under oath? It just raises the stakes dramatically. Have you seen that asked?

JG: I have not. The Biden quote you played earlier. “The PE had no contact with Blago and no contacts with his staff.” Well then, why did the US Attorney’s Office want to talk to him?

Something is really not adding up in that equation. Unless the US Attorney’s Office just wanted to say “hi” to the PE. Clearly there had to be some reason for them to call that meeting. If he was under oath, that completely changes the story.

Maybe they felt an informal discussion was sufficient. There’s a lot more information, I think, we’re going to hear from Fitzgerald.

HH: BTW, even if it’s informal, it doesn’t take you away from 18 USC 1001, the False Statements Act.

Hugh talks about Fitzmas and other news of the week with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn.

Listen here:


‘Twas The Steyn Before Fitzmas…


HH: Let’s begin with the issue of the report. I hate to bring politics into a holiday, but it seems to me that the Obama camp’s release of the report yesterday was designed to assure that no one talked about it, so we’re going to. What do you make about its timing and what it says?

MS: Well basically, this is an attempt at self-exoneration. I mean, this is slightly absurd. I mean, no one would take this seriously if George W. Bush was issuing reports on what he knew about Iraqi WMD. People would be mocking it and hooting it with derision. I think clearly, releasing it on the 23rd of December is a way to ensure that it stays buried all the way until Hogmanay at least. And they will probably be successful at that. People are not yet ready to hear bad things about the President-elect. That’s both not just a partisan thing. I think that is the natural optimism of the American people in some way.

HH: Now Mark, I got an e-mail, actually a number of e-mails from assistant United States attorneys around the United States, and I posted one at, where he kind of walks us through what the U.S. attorney’s office is doing in Chicago. And it’s not good for Rahm Emanuel. It’s not particularly bad for the President-elect, but it’s the sort of thing, he describes in detail, that Fitzgerald has done in the past to get Scooter Libby tied up in a web of misstatements, any one of which to a federal person is a violation of 18 USC 1001, the False Statements Act.

MS: Yeah.

HH: Do you think Fitzgerald’s playing for keeps here?

MS: Well, my respect for Patrick Fitzgerald has gone up, having seen him put away my friend, Conrad Black, who is spending the first of what could be six Christmases in jail in Florida on a very thin chain of circumstantial evidence that was nevertheless piled up relentlessly and very effectively by Patrick Fitzgerald and his assistant U.S. attorneys in the northern district of Illinois. I regarded him with contempt over the Scooter Libby thing, but one can regard people with contempt and still nevertheless be impressed by their effectiveness. And I think the difficulty for Rahm Emanuel is that it’s really in the interest of every party here to, if you like, set him up as the fall guy. And there will be…he risks approaching a tipping point whereby Obama decides it’s actually better to toss Rahm Emanuel to the wolves, and leap to the clear himself. That’s the difficulty.

HH: Now do you see us getting clear of this? This is a very complicated scandal with Blagojevich about to be indicted and impeached, and he’s not going to go gently into the night. We’ve got a Rahm Emanuel on tape, we’ve got other people on tape. We’ve got Chicago. This makes, actually, Whitewater look tame in comparison when Bill Clinton entered office, and I’m not sure that the President-elect is dealing with it very effectively by not telling us, for example, that he was interviewed by the U.S. attorney’s office for five days. I’m surprised that Mr. Transparency didn’t come clean with that.

MS: Well no, and I think it was clear that this was going on from the moment he gave his first press conference, where there was no outrage. The normal person, if you’ve been the Senator representing the people of Illinois for the last 20 minutes, or however long he was a Senator before he became president, and it emerged that your seat was effectively being auctioned to the guy who could do Governor and Mrs. Blagojevich most good, you would be outraged. And the lack of outrage is what Sherlock Holmes would call the dog that didn’t bark. And the minute he did that, he set himself up for all this, you know, what did Obama know, has he been interviewed. And it’s more dangerous than Whitewater, because it’s understandable. It’s vivid. There are these transcripts of the Governor using the F word every 1.8 nanoseconds. That’s vivid in a way that some obscure, rinky-dink, nickel and dime land scandal in Arkansas isn’t.

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

29 Responses to “Hugh Hewitt asks a good question – Was the dog that didn’t bark (Barack Obama) under oath?”

  1. goferit Says:


    Good day to all!

  2. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    afternoon everyone

  3. hockeyfan530 Says:

    hi everyone. How was everyone’s Christmas? Just have a few minutes so thought i’d check in. Still have some Christmas visits to make!

    no new info on this article…but since it’s slow here and elsewhere…it is very accurate and straight forward

  4. Tenacity Says:

    Thank you for all the good posts you have made yesterday and today. I have been doing drive-by lurking every chance I get. So those posting should not assume your posts are not being seen. I have seen all of them and simply didn’t have time to respond.

    I have never been a Ron Paul fan, but I once thought he was courageous for speaking the truth on some controversial domestic issues. Now, I see him as just another gutless politician. So, Ron Paul, if you ever see this, you just blew the best chance you ever had to stand out from the pack and show the voting public that you were For The People. Instead, you showed us all the streak of yellow down your back. Go home Mr. Paul…you are of no use to conservatives, libertarians or anyone that believes in our Constitution!

  5. Tenacity Says:

    What’s your prediction for the second half? You’d better be hoping Romo looks before he throws after the break.

  6. rosettasister Says:

    Tenacity Says:
    December 28, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Thank you for all the good posts you have made yesterday and today. I have been doing drive-by lurking every chance I get.


    Thank you, Tenacity!

    drive-by lurking, one of my favorite pastimes!

  7. rosettasister Says:

    “Politico: Obama’s Blago report creates more questions than it answers”

    “… raising questions about why they took the unusual step of interviewing the president-elect, what they asked him and whether he was under oath.”

    Ed Morrissey:

    I’m a little curious about that myself. (Incoming White House Counsel Greg) Craig never mentions that, which tends to make me think he wasn’t under oath when Fitzgerald questioned him. Presidents almost never testify under oath (recall what happened to the one who did), and
    I’d bet that Fitzgerald would have kept to that tradition in any initial interview. Even approaching him for the investigation seems unusual, as Politico notes. It seems that Fitzgerald needed further clarification than Obama’s flat denials, and it would be interesting to know why — and why Team Obama never bothered to mention the interview themselves.

    “How They Handle Scandal”

    While team Obama’s report on the Blagojevich affair was remarkably spare, Kenneth P. Vogel and Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico think it provides a roadmap to how the next administration will handle scandals.

    Here are the “five rules” they have discerned: “Be transparent, to an extent”; “don’t let the news cycle dictate response”; “no freelancing”; “aides take hits to protect the boss”; and “shy away from even justified fights.”

    If you could use a good laugh, check out how D-Day, however, thinks we should simply move on.

    Yes, D-Day, that would be fair. Not!

  8. rosettasister Says:

    This was nice of Polarik:

    To: jamese777

    Since Berg’s petition has been denied without comment in Supreme Court conferences twice already under Justice Souter and again under Justice Kennedy..

    Not quite, but you’re not alone as most people don’t know all of the facts. People ought to rely on, and make it their source.

    There are two appeals that are pending a conference by the entire SCOTUS: one is the three-part Injunction:

    Emergency Motion For An Immediate Injunction Prohibiting The Certification Of Electors By The Governors Of Each State, To Stay The Electoral College From Casting Any Votes For Barack H. Obama On December 15, 2008 And The Counting Of Any Votes Cast For Barack H. Obama By Vice President Richard B. Cheney, The House Of Representatives And The Senate On January 6, 2009 Pending Resolution Of Petitioner’s Appeal,

    and the other is the Writ of Certiori. There is a conference scheduled for SCOTUS on Jan. 9 to discuss the writ of certiori, as well as a conference scheduled for SCOTUS on Jan 16 to discuss the injunction.

    I can guarantee you though that there will be no invalidation of the Electoral College vote because that is not even being asked for in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

    Well, yeah, because that’s not the purpose of the Writ — that’s the purpose of the Injunction (and I recommend that you read it). Keep in mind that our government is sailing into uncharted waters here, and this is the Pearl Harbor of the Presidency — something that cannot be ignored by all three branches, and not just the Judicial.

    This is the most important case to ever come before SCOTUS, so you can forget about them scheduling it after the Inauguration when they agree to hear it.

    The whole purpose for having a Supreme Court is to deal with issues like this (and one which will not go away), and if they refuse to deal with it, then they will have rendered themselves impotent for future Constitutional cases.

    If it’s not Berg’s lawsuit, then it will be Keyes’ lawsuit, someone who does have standing and who can demonstrate direct harm from the election of Obama. SCOTUS will have to deal with that if the lower court rejects it. Same goes for the other lawsuits currently under review, and should Obama gets past the electoral hurdles, then there will be dozens more requesting emergency stays of the inauguration until Obama proves his citizenship status.

    To get you up-to-speed, here’s a chronological review of everything that has happened from August 21 to December 23:

    • 08/21/08: Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
    • 08/21/08: Memorandum in support of temporary restraining order
    • 08/21/08: Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order
    • 08/21/08: Temporary Restraining Order
    • 09/24/08: Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss
    • 09/29/08: Berg’s Opposition to Defendan’t Motion to Dismiss
    • 10/06/08: Motion for First Amended Complaint
    • 10/06/08: Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    • 10/09/08: Berg’s Opposition to Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    • 10/21/08: Motion for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted
    • 10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (signed by Judge Surrick, faxed copy)
    • 10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (unsigned clear copy)
    • 10/30/08 2 Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
    • 10/30/08 3 Exhibit Star Bulletin Obama born in different hospital
    • 10/30/08 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    • 10/30/08 Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia
    • 10/30/08 Application to Justice David H. Souter for stay of the Presidential Elections
    • 10/30/08 Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama
    • 10/30/08 Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    • 10/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari
    • 10/31/08 Order from the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
    • 12/04/08 Emergency for an immediate injunction prohibiting the certification of electors filed w/ the US Court of Appeals from the Third District
    • 12/12/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Anthony Kennedy for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
    • Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    • Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
    • Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    • Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
    • Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
    • Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

    The Joint Session of Congress with Vice President Cheney presiding as President of the Senate will meet to certify the Electoral College vote on January 6th not on January 8th.

    So noted in the Injunction and which also answers the remainder of your comments, except for the likelihood issue.

    BTW, the vote by the House and VP does not have to take place on January 6. It can be delayed, as well as the date of the Inauguration, and I predict that it will.

    Before I give you my take on it, I want to mention a possible action that could be taken to force Obama to prove his eligibility.

    As improbable as it sounds, Bush can issue an Executive Order demanding proof of Obama’s eligibility, even without asking Obama to produce it. Obama is a security risk, and to allow an illegal immigrant, or a US citizen with dual citizenship to one or more hostile countries, to be in command of our armed forces and nuclear arsenal presents a major national security issue. In fact, he should have issued an EO a long time ago.

    Right now, SCOTUS is hoping that the House invalidates the Electoral count, either outright, or by way of requiring Obama to prove his eligibility. Yet, even if that doesn’t happen, SCOTUS will have no choice but to require Obama to show it. I just do not see how Obama will be allowed to serve as POTUS without proving his eligibility.

    168 posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 2:02:44 PM by Polarik

  9. rosettasister Says:

    “Eligibility remains focus of Supremes’ conferences”

    ”Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in”

    As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.

    The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

    Some of the legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

    Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

  10. rosettasister Says:

    “Connerat v. Browning: FL Case Not Officially Over!”

    I had previously reported that Connerat v. Browning had been dismissed per the Florida Supreme Court’s docket. However, Spencer Connerat, Plaintiff pro se in this case, had the following to say:

    As a pro se litigant, I must be notified of any Dismissal, Service, Warrant, etc. regarding my case. To wit: There has been no notification given, to me, of any action, whatsoever, in my case SC08-2338.

    Therefore, it is still pending. … There is another very interesting aspect of this case, which is an errant ‘Test’ I received on Monday, from the honourable Court. It has been returned Certified Mail, with a letter to Clerk Hall as cover.

    I saw a change in comments regarding my case on the Supreme Court’s website, Friday, December 12, 2008. Therefore, since the site is provided for convenience only, [it] is subject to change …

    To date, Mr. Connerat has not been served any paperwork by the Court either by USPS or by law enforcement personnel.

  11. rosettasister Says:

    Found at PatDollard:

    Since the MSM was busy with whatnot and couldn’t show you …

    Troops Give Bush Tremendous Sendoff in Iraq (12-14-08)

    Troops Thank President Bush:

    US troops in Iraq gave President Bush a tremendous sendoff today. This is an excellent video that you will sadly never see in your nightly news.

    Edited from DVIDS video.

    Bush in Iraq 12-14-2008

  12. ddlew2 Says:


  13. ddlew2 Says:


  14. ddlew2 Says:


    This game was such a shocker, it made top headlines on Drudge Report BEFORE THE GAME WAS EVEN OVER!

  15. Tenacity Says:

    dd & Slider,
    I’m sure Tony Romo has had a worse game, but it must have been at least 10 years ago. Talk about embarrassing…if I were Dallas, I would try to run out the clock.

  16. Troy Says:

    This is a good comment posted at CitizenWells

    Jackie // December 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Please read the following two quotes from none other than Thomas Jefferson. We must and we will take our country back……even if by force we must stand up to the bullies of the Left and the Right who are robbing Americans of their Constitutional Rights!!!! Inform yourselves with all the ammunition necessary to do the JOB!!!! GO PATRIOTS!!!!!!

    *There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power and restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. ~T.J.~

    *I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. ~T.J.~


  17. Troy Says:

    New Jib-Jab video: 2008 Year in Review


  18. PUMA Says:

    Per this website Mr. Obama did talk to the Governor about his
    Senate seat. Read and see what you think!

  19. Tenacity Says:

    Whatever was ailing Dallas today was apparently contagious and the Donkeys (Broncos) have it. Looks like I will be rooting for the Titans.

    Plus, look what we have to look forward to…Springsteen at the Super Bowl. I wonder if they will offer earplugs. The last time I heard him was at the Miami Fronton back in the 70’s. I got such a headache that I went out into the lobby area and it was too loud out there. You don’t need to buy a ticket to one of his concerts…just get within a couple blocks of the place. I partially credit him with my high-end hearing loss.

  20. susie hudson Says:

    ROMO had one serious hang-over. he musnt drink so much before gameday.
    mangini should be fired from the jets, and we all know hell never work in “this town” again. once a rat always a rat… hes a democrat
    miami has parcells callimg the plays from upstairs….they havnt beat a good team all year, {minus the pats}
    indy is on its last leg, although they have looked good lately.
    I really cannot stomach coach fischer for titans. he demands his players to play dirty.
    baltimore is just plain dirty.
    geez its a stretch to find a team to route for…

  21. susiezen Says:


  22. rosettasister Says:

    PUMA Says:
    December 29, 2008 at 2:57 am

    Per this website Mr. Obama did talk to the Governor about his
    Senate seat. Read and see what you think!


    Thanks, PUMA, for the link!

    You should be able to post at will now.


  23. rosettasister Says:

    Latest from Citizen Wells:

  24. inspirational1 Says:

    good morning… thanks rose for the great posts and keeping it going over the holiday…popping in now and then..
    Going to India for five weeks so hopefully the I can still fly back then and that the ONE doesn’t make it that far.
    It will be a sad day for America…

    Love the posts 🙂

  25. inspirational1 Says:

    do you think if we would write in the letters we are sending that the jobs of all that don’t uphold the constitution that you swear to protect will also in jepordy as conspirisors to commit fraud and cover up OBAMA.

  26. Katie Says:

    Over the weekend, I started questioning the whole NBC issue based on the Donofrio case. Obama is not stupid, so why would he put something so blatant on his website about his dual citizenship at birth? Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases were based on Obama’s claims about his ‘father’, but since we know he’s a compulsive liar, why would we believe that claim? We have absolutely no proof of who is father or birthplace is. All we have is what Obama tells us (kinda like, ‘I have investigated myself and I am clear of any wrongdoing’) Is it possible that Berg’s case really is the one the SCOTUS can address because the gov’t knows he is not even a US citizen? Is it possible that’s why the SCOTUS has rejected those cases without comment? I’m not a lawyer by any stretch, but usually my intuition is right. Either that, or it’s just wishful thinking on my part.

  27. rosettasister Says:

    Good morning, all!

    New Thread:

  28. kay Says:


  29. rosettasister Says:

    kay Says:
    December 30, 2008 at 1:17 am


    Welcome, kay!

    In case you see this, please join us at most recent post.

    The link is just above your post.

    You should be able to post at will now.

    I will copy your post to new thread.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: