[Simon]

Thataboy!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's from the CBS News link you posted above.

Dude! The diagram was almost 17 lines into the article. Who reads past the first 3?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's from your willful stubbornness in claiming that no form of "speech" could legitimately cause harm to someone who didn't somehow deserve it. Obviously this little prod was necessary, as you've backed off your erroneous position, slightly, in language if not in tone.

Not backing off, explaining further. I was trying to be brief and chose my words poorly.

Force and compromise are not mutually exclusive. "Compromise" can be arrived at willingly by both parties, or two stubborn parties can be forced to "compromise" by an authority figure. Both are forms of "compromise."

Well, I just can't agree. A compromise involves an agreement between parties. When you have a third party forcing one or both parties to give something up, that's no longer a compromise. It is thuggery at best. Not to mention that there never was a negotiation on this issue, only a government telling people how they are allowed to behave regardless whether they agree or not.

And what about the rational reactions that cause harm to others?

Such as? In the theater example, what is the rational reaction that would cause harm?

Ever heard of "suicide by cop?"

Are you suggesting that cops kill people purely because of their "speech"? What exactly ARE you getting at here?

If a person is saying something that is intended to cause cops to shoot him, but he isn't doing anything to back that up, showing evidence that he is credible (such as showing a fake bomb or waving a gun around), or otherwise behaving in a threatening manner…no, the his speech is not to blame. A cop has no business murdering someone for what they are merely saying in the absence of other evidence of a threat. So yeah, it's the cops wrong choice that would be at fault here. If there IS other evidence, like the ol' finger in the jacket pocket, the cops may feel genuinely threatened and that may be a different story, but that is no longer merely speech.

Consider "homicide by cop" (or other private security entity). There's a million ways you could try to falsely accuse someone (in the heat of the moment, a moment which you have engineered btw) as a means to cause physical harm (leave aside property harm which is even simpler).

Same as above.

How would you ever buy something America likes to sell, like a motor vehicle or an airplane or a computer or software, if you had to do all due diligence yourself, and if the seller could actively deceive you with no penalties? There is simply no way to make that work.

Yeah, if only there were consumer advocate agencies, broadcast media, a worldwide consumer accessible communication network, and word of mouth. That would be AWESOME. Your really suggesting that THESE DAYS, this is not doable? You know better than that.

Whether we like income taxes is not the question. The question (your question) is whether you would cause someone harm, through no fault of their own, simply by what you say.

How is someone else directly harmed by me lying about my taxes? We are also taking about the definition of harm here as well. It does not physically harm them and it doesn't rob them of their money. The government does. By force.

Nevertheless, the context IS important. Imagine this scenario: The government decides that the need for even MORE taxes is so important that they create a special 10% tax on every abortion a woman receives, and thus they require under threat of punishment that each woman disclose her abortion on her tax return. (may seem ridiculous to you, but ethically speaking it is very similar IMO) Are you gonna argue that other people would be harmed by her lying about it? Who is REALLY the one being harmed by this scenario? I mean, who IS the asshole here? The liar, or the government?

Is calling someone and threatening their small child more than merely speech? What about sending a photo of the child alone at school, still just speech? How is that speech at all? What about talking to the child too, telling them to pass a lewd message to the parent, to accompany the threat? What about telling the child lies about the parent that make the child run away? What if the lies are supported by evidence, like doctored photos? Like it or not, some speech is an action and not just speech, and

You're bringing The children into this…really?

as you have noticed above, the distinction is intention; is it intended to communicate ideas, or is it intended to cause action/injury?

No, it's not just about intention. I never said that. Even in your example above, you haven't met any of MY criteria: directly resulting in physical harm, or wrongly separating someone from their property. The only thing remotely close would be the child running away, but children are not rational adults and rights should be determined or applied based upon the standard of adults, not children. Children do and should have a different standard of what we protect them from. I thought that was understood in a discussion like this.

So what IS your definition of harm here? Being offended? Inconvenienced? Having your feelings hurt?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Edit: I would rather focus on the following post, but if you want to carry on with this one I would be happy to oblige.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well, I just can't agree. A compromise involves an agreement between parties.

 

A parent settles an otherwise deadlocked argument between two children, in which each child gains something and loses something else. What would you call this situation: the children were forced to ________? I just want to know what word can be use to communicate with you.

Such as? In the theater example, what is the rational reaction that would cause harm?

 

Walking over strangers is rational in a burning building even if the same action would be irrational in a normal building. Lots of actions would be. Escalating reciprocal self-defense takes it from there, drawing in people who don't take the original bait.

Are you suggesting that cops kill people purely because of their "speech"? What exactly ARE you getting at here?

If a person is saying something that is intended to cause cops to shoot him, but he isn't doing anything to back that up, showing evidence that he is credible (such as showing a fake bomb or waving a gun around), or otherwise behaving in a threatening manner…no, the his speech is not to blame. A cop has no business murdering someone for what they are merely saying in the absence of other evidence of a threat. So yeah, it's the cops wrong choice that would be at fault here. If there IS other evidence, like the ol' finger in the jacket pocket, the cops may feel genuinely threatened and that may be a different story, but that is no longer merely speech.

Same as above.

 

Geez ok, I can come up with something for you... suppose for a second that I don't like you. All I have to do is make the police or some other private security (or armed private citizen) believe that you're threatening them, for them to act in justifiable and rational self-defense against you. Even if their reaction is tempered and appropriate to the legitimately perceived threat, it still harms you. Make it all strictly non-lethal if that helps you, but that distinction is irrelevant. If yesterday is any indication, then you still don't want to "get it," so here's an example; I wait for you to be doing something that could be misconstrued, like teaching your son to shoot a bb gun, or having an argument with your wife, or chopping up a big bloody cut of steak. Then I call the cops and tell them some crazy story about you that warrants investigation, urgency, and suspicion of violence. When they get to you, prepared for an armed attacker, I shout attacking words at them, from your direction, and maybe I have a shill near them who shouts that you're pulling a gun, or feigns getting shot. All just words, does that give you the confidence that the police won't fall for it and accidentally shoot you? How about wrestle you down, arrest you for two days and confiscate whatever you were holding and wearing at the time? Either way, it causes you harm, and I orchestrated it to cause you harm, shouldn't I be held accountable, even though all I did was speak?

I get it you don't want to believe that the rational actions of individuals in a crowded arena can lead to seemingly irrational outcomes, because you live out in the middle of your own property and you don't have to be close enough to strangers that toes get stepped on. But we can't all be as lucky as you, and the law has to serve us city folk too.

Yeah, if only there were consumer advocate agencies, broadcast media, a worldwide consumer accessible communication network, and word of mouth. That would be AWESOME. Your really suggesting that THESE DAYS, this is not doable? You know better than that.

 

And that's going to be a real comfort to you when your car explodes and your computer empties your bank accounts because those entities were all taken over by Comcast after we decided to end all restrictions on any form of speech.

How is someone else directly harmed by me lying about my taxes?

 

You're a nut, you know that? I have the sneaking suspicion that you're serious, so... the government is monetarily harmed by you not paying them what they are constitutionally owed. We the people, who made a whatchucallit, a "compromise" by signing the 16th amendment, all agreed we would pay our "fair" share, and if you cheat then it hurts the taxpayers who do pay their share. If you can't get over your obsessive hatred of taxes long enough to see that, well, that's why you're a nut.

No, it's not just about intention. I never said that. Even in your example above, you haven't met any of MY criteria: directly resulting in physical harm, or wrongly separating someone from their property. The only thing remotely close would be the child running away, but children are not rational adults and rights should be determined or applied based upon the standard of adults, not children. Children do and should have a different standard of what we protect them from. I thought that was understood in a discussion like this.

 

Fine then, it works with a wife too. The stalker shows your wife photos of you cheating, drugging, and then disposing of the bodies of other women. She fights with you about it, you deny it, they show her some fake evidence of you doing a "coverup" of the previous evidence, and she leaves you. You're not being irrational, she's not being irrational, but you're both hurt by it.

So what IS your definition of harm here? Being offended? Inconvenienced? Having your feelings hurt?

 

I never mentioned any of those things.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe we've simply gotten off track, smac, here is my real question:

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If someone does this he is in no way responsible for the irrational reactions of those in the theater…unless it is determined that there was a willful intent to cause bodily harm to people or to deceptively or forcefully separate them from their belongings.

But what if they do (intend that)?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're a nut, you know that?

…aaaaaaaaand I'm done.

Thanks for the conversation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Really? You made this whole huge stink about the sanctity of the first amendment, but you think it's A-Ok for you to blatantly (consciously, self-servingly) defy the sixteenth amendment? In what way are you not a gigantic hypocrite?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're a nut, you know that? I have the sneaking suspicion that you're serious, so... the government is monetarily harmed by you not paying them what they are constitutionally owed. We the people, who made a whatchucallit, a "compromise" by signing the 16th amendment, all agreed we would pay our "fair" share, and if you cheat then it hurts the taxpayers who do pay their share.

Define "fair share". Everyone paying the same amount? I'm cool with that. So, find me the person in the country who pays the least taxes and I'll match him. Sorted.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Define "fair share". Everyone paying the same amount? I'm cool with that. So, find me the person in the country who pays the least taxes and I'll match him. Sorted.

I like everyone paying the same percentage

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I like everyone paying the same percentage

That'd be my second choice (to an option I haven't mentioned yet), but I like it all the same.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Define "fair share". Everyone paying the same amount? I'm cool with that. So, find me the person in the country who pays the least taxes and I'll match him. Sorted.

The constitution allows congress to collect income taxes, period. "Fair share" is defined by the congressional ability to get re-elected after deciding what "fair share" is. If you want more stringency, get a new amendment ratified.

But the point is, you can't feign outrage over people skirting one amendment, and in the same breath claim it's ok for you to skirt another.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The constitution allows congress to collect income taxes, period.

I think you mean:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

The US constitution allows the US congress to collect income taxes, period.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Fair share" is defined by the congressional ability to get re-elected after deciding what "fair share" is. If you want more stringency, get a new amendment ratified.

I don't need to get a new amendment ratified.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Look at the title of this thread, genius. Don't pretend there's any confusion about what country we're talking about

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I like everyone paying the same percentage

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

+1 here

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Really? You made this whole huge stink about the sanctity of the first amendment…

This discussion wasn't about the sanctity of the first amendment, it was a philosophical argument about the sanctity of rights as they should be treated, at least that's how it started. We spent most of the time bickering about specifics situations. I'm not going to go back and re-read my posts by I believe the only time I even mentioned the constitution was in disagreeing with an interpretation of it by the SCOTUS.

…but you think it's A-Ok for you to blatantly (consciously, self-servingly) defy the sixteenth amendment? In what way are you not a gigantic hypocrite?

It's amazing to me that you put the sixteenth amendment on the same moral ground as the right to free speech.

Anyway…

Where in the sixteenth amendment does it say that I must disclose the amount of my income? It doesn't, federal law does. Even so, there is nothing to "defy" in the sixteenth amendment. All it does is authorize income taxes, it by itself doesn't impose them. Federal law does. So, if I am speaking of defying anything, it's federal law.

Nevertheless, we are under no moral obligation to comply with any law that is a violation of our rights, or that is otherwise unjust.

You gonna continue with the name-calling or are we going to have an adult discussion here?

[Orion27]

Very recent examples of free speech: Free the RNC/8 !

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...d/#post3950439

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You gonna continue with the name-calling or are we going to have an adult discussion here?

Fine by me:

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If someone does this he is in no way responsible for the irrational reactions of those in the theater…unless it is determined that there was a willful intent to cause bodily harm to people or to deceptively or forcefully separate them from their belongings.

But what if they do (intend that)?

[OldManMac]

The rage really isn't about health care; that's just a nice smokescreen for what's really pissing of the angry, white, crowds. If it was about health care, and government take over, the smarter ones in the Tea Party movement (not that there appear to be that many smart ones in that crowd), would have long ago decried the corporate take over of the American government, and how lobbyists and rule makers are in positions of power to craft rules detrimental to the American public (e.g., big coal ripping off entire mountaintops, and then dumping the toxic wastes therefrom wherever they feel like, or big oil writing rules that are beneficial to them, or a select few, powerful, bankers crafting useless instruments of credit and pawning them off on unsuspecting investors, and then getting bailed out, and then getting rewarded for their criminal behavior).

I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating.

Op-Ed Columnist - The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com

[Dork.]

This thread is on its 10th page already*, and American Liberty has not been completely annihilated yet.

When is this thread gonna deliver?



* = I stopped reading after Page 2. Since we have a Page 10, I assume Liberty is still intact.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The rage really isn't about health care; that's just a nice smokescreen for what's really pissing of the angry, white, crowds.

I haven't read that link (I have a penis, sorry) but I'll tell you what it's really about: A bunch of GOPers woke up one morning and discovered that the GOP no longer represents their viewpoint. So they decided to do something for themselves. And since you colonialists are inexperienced in having more than two parties, the "tea party" is the crock you end up with when folks try and do stuff for themselves.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

If it was about health care, and government take over,... the Tea Party movement ... would have long ago decried the corporate take over of the American government, and how lobbyists and rule makers are in positions of power to craft rules detrimental to the American public (e.g., big coal ripping off entire mountaintops, and then dumping the toxic wastes therefrom wherever they feel like, or big oil writing rules that are beneficial to them, or a select few, powerful, bankers crafting useless instruments of credit and pawning them off on unsuspecting investors, and then getting bailed out, and then getting rewarded for their criminal behavior).

I don't understand the connection you're trying to draw between increasing government control (health care) and decreasing government control (allowing mining, oil, and banking companies to run wild).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I haven't read that link

That doesn't surprise me, nor does the inane comment immediately after the above statement.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't understand the connection you're trying to draw between increasing government control (health care) and decreasing government control (allowing mining, oil, and banking companies to run wild).

I'm trying to point out the irrationality behind the Tea Party's cherry picking of government control initiatives that they choose to complain about, and the article points out that it really isn't about health care reform that's driving them to raging lunacy; it's about their fears that the days of the white man's rule is coming to an end in this country.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A bunch of GOPers woke up one morning and discovered that the GOP no longer represents their viewpoint.

Reality check: it never did!

I'm afraid that's exactly the kind of nonsense the reactionaries want people (especially those within the GOP) to believe. Fact is the GOP was never this right-wing reactionary party comprised of uneducated hicks, religious freaks, and bigots.

Several years ago the GOP ran a bit out of control and by the time they woke up a handful of determined freaks had taken the party hostage dictating a right-wing reactionary populist agenda. Moderate Republicans were bullied out while political debate was replaced with propaganda. The people running the GOP prior to WWII would be disgusted by all this Tea Party baloney and the retarded Sarah Palin pseudo-revolutionary crap. The GOP used to be a party of responsible, reasonable, educated men. The USA would be a better place if the GOP returned to that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Reality check: it never did!

Tell them that.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm afraid that's exactly the kind of nonsense the reactionaries want people (especially those within the GOP) to believe.

It's real simple: The tea party grew out of the Ron Paul movement - libertarians, essentially. The GOP doesn't really like the idea of libertarianism and saw the TP as a threat which would split their vote. Thus, to nip it in the bud they've poisoned it by making the TP look like a bunch of nutters - i.e. introducing people like Palin. I can tell ya, no proper libertarian or Ron Paul supporter would give the time of day to people like Palin.

Or, you can trust the opinion of a newspaper which would quite like to show some adverts to you and maybe get you to subscribe to a hard copy.

[Simon]

The Libertarians aren't the issue. In the USA of today they simply don't have the votes. Calling the Tea Party movement libertarian is almost an insult to the latter. But I understand you already realize that.

IMHO the issue here is a very vocal minority of fundamentalists that's trying to kidnap an established party. To make that work they have to convince said party that they had failed their core values. Ironically those core values never had anything to do with this reactionary agenda.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm trying to point out the irrationality behind the Tea Party's cherry picking of government control initiatives that they choose to complain about

It seems rational enough to me: private sector should be limited by the free market, public sector should be limited period (because arguably it's immune to the free market, so there is nothing else to contain it). I don't agree with it, but it is internally consistent.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Simon 

IMHO the issue here is a very vocal minority of fundamentalists that's trying to kidnap an established party.

I'm not buying that. I think the core of the TP is libertarian types who don't realise that they're libertarians and think the GOP is supposed to stand for what they stand for.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The rage really isn't about health care; that's just a nice smokescreen for what's really pissing of the angry, white, crowds. If it was about health care, and government take over, the smarter ones in the Tea Party movement (not that there appear to be that many smart ones in that crowd), would have long ago decried the corporate take over of the American government, and how lobbyists and rule makers are in positions of power to craft rules detrimental to the American public (e.g., big coal ripping off entire mountaintops, and then dumping the toxic wastes therefrom wherever they feel like, or big oil writing rules that are beneficial to them, or a select few, powerful, bankers crafting useless instruments of credit and pawning them off on unsuspecting investors, and then getting bailed out, and then getting rewarded for their criminal behavior).

I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating.

Op-Ed Columnist - The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com

You think the american people don't understand corporate/government collusion?
YouTube - Alex Jones Inside CNN Attack Piece PT 2/2

BTW Frank Rich is full of sh*t and so is Krugman who decries the same rhetoric:

[OldManMac]

^^ I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

^^ I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Why not? There seems to be a few here who think you're the one who's confused. Make your point.
The fact is OldMan, you're correct, the complaint isn't about Health Care because the Bill isn't about health care. You will have a better understanding as time goes by.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why not? There seems to be a few here who think you're the one who's confused. Make your point.
The fact is OldMan, you're correct, the complaint isn't about Health Care because the Bill isn't about health care. You will have a better understanding as time goes by.

BINGO! When will these embittered, lilly-white, angry, old, I-know-better-than-you elitist, anti-capitalists understand that the largest of abusive corporations are hand-picked and nurtured to their monolithic state by the biggest corporation of them all; the Federal government. It's really easy to sit back and rail on the horrors of the free market, but nary a word about putting the largest sectors of the banking, automotive, and insurance industries in your back pocket. Negotiations on AIG bonuses figured into the stimulus by Dodd anyone? Hmm... yeah... sounds acceptable.

MMGRRRR...HALIBURTON!!!

[OldManMac]

^^ I wouldn't expect you to understand either.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Simon 

IMHO the issue here is a very vocal minority of fundamentalists that's trying to kidnap an established party. To make that work they have to convince said party that they had failed their core values. Ironically those core values never had anything to do with this reactionary agenda.

The country voted out a bunch of spendy Republicans and replaced them with the Democrats' ideal of conservative candidates. They won on Conservative platforms. As it turns out, they could be more costly than anything we've imagined to date and people have had enough. Most of the country disapproves of our current direction, some are vocal. The vocal still enjoy the majority sentiment of the country. While you had a great many who opposed the Iraq war for example, only a few would hit the streets. While a great many of them were incapable of locating Iraq on a world map, I don't recall all the concern.

What's the huge problem with peaceful assembly and dissent around here all of a friggin' sudden? Now we're taking collective IQ examinations, calling them astro-turf, nazis, dissecting their political persuasion... what... why? What the?

[Doofy]

^^ This from an Old Man who doesn't understand the concept of I can smoke on my own private property if I want to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

^^ I wouldn't expect you to understand either.

Understand what... that you're perfectly cool with the shady bonds of big government and big business as long as there's a (D) after their name?

You shouldn't expect me to understand.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Understand what... that you're perfectly cool with the shady bonds of big government and big business as long as there's a (D) after their name?

You shouldn't expect me to understand.

I've never said, or indicated, any such thing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I've never said, or indicated, any such thing.

Of course not just as I've never said I'm not fond of pinko-commie libs.

One can generally get a sense for another's position by the threads and posters they choose to address and their own posts. If someone keeps screaming LOOK OUT FOR THE TRAIN while trees are falling around them in the forest, I kind of wonder what they're looking at and why.

In this case it seems you may have an unhealthy degree of concern for trains when you're in the forest now and there are no trains or train tracks for as far as the eye can see.

[OldManMac]

If you say so.

[Chongo]

Well, it's started. First the charge off, next the reduction of coverage for employees, and the dropping of coverage for retirees.
Verizon to take $970M charge from health care bill - Yahoo! Finance

On Thursday April 1, 2010, 9:36 pm EDT

NEW YORK (AP) -- The corporate tax impact of the recent health care overhaul grew Thursday as Verizon Communications Inc. announced it will record a related $970 million non-cash charge in the first quarter.

So far at least 15 companies have disclosed about $2.8 billion in charges prompted by the health care overhaul. Verizon's charge is the second-largest after AT&T, which last week announced a $1 billion charge related to the tax bill.

Verizon and other companies currently receive a government subsidy to keep prescription drug benefits for retirees. They've been able to deduct all of their expenses, but that ends in 2013 under the recently passed legislation.

Companies are announcing the charges now because accounting rules say they have to book them during the period a new law is enacted.

Verizon's announcement follows Wednesday's disclosures by Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. that they would record first-quarter charges of $150 million and $96 million, respectively, related to the health care legislation.

Other companies that recently announced charges include Ingersoll-Rand PLC and Goodrich Corp.

[jokell82]

Wonder how long it'll take for Verizon to raise their rates? Or if they're going to add it as an added "fee" to everyone's bill?

[Dork.]

Do you know the background of that particular tax loophole?

Health law strips companies of sweet tax deal | Reuters

As part of the 2003 Medicare overhaul, the Federal Government gave employers a direct subsidy (i.e. cash) equal to 28% of the cost for covering their retirees. However, they allowed these corporations to deduct the full amount of their retiree coverage, including the cash handout, from their tax filings. (Claiming a tax deduction for expenses that you have gotten reimbursed for by the government is also known as double-dipping, generally illegal but specifically made legal here).

The one-time charges reported in the media also do not correspond directly to any increase in current taxes paid out by the companies. Rather, since this deduction on the cash subsidy is scheduled to go away in 2014, and it has to do with retirement savings, companies have to account for it properly. So it's more of a shuffling of future liabilities than any actual loss on the part of the companies.

[jokell82]

I did not - good to know.

[Chongo]

Hmm, this guy has a point.

[Dork.]

Can you believe, it's already been a month since The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty!

Funny, though, it's not quite as bad as they all made it out to be. I seem to have quite a bit of liberty left. Maybe we're importing it from Canada?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Can you believe, it's already been a month since The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty!

Funny, though, it's not quite as bad as they all made it out to be. I seem to have quite a bit of liberty left. Maybe we're importing it from Canada?

You mean like the Mets importing their catcher?

[SpaceMonkey]

Speaking of which, I actually watched the entirety of that 20 inning Mets-Cardinals game this weekend. A distinct loss of 7 hours of my liberty, I would say.

[Dork.]

That game was the Complete Annihilation of offense.

[BadKosh]

Rod Blagojevich is gonna have one interesting trial. Seems the Courts didn't do such a great job in hiding info on his subpoenas. Such stuff as :

Obama may have lied about conversations with convicted fraudster

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago

Obama may have overtly recommended Valerie Jarret for his Senate seat

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago

A supporter of President Obama may have offered quid pro quo on a Jarrett senate appointment

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago

Obama maintained a list of good Senate candidates

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago

Rahm Emanuel allegedly floated Cheryl Jackson's name for the Senate seat

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago

Obama had a secret phone call with Blagojevich

Source: Redactions Revealed: The Six Secrets You Need to Know From the Obama Subpoena Request | NBC Chicago