Saturday morning ;when the press sleeps in late , Subpoenas were issued in the Blogo Federal Case .
Among the list of those being served is a who's who of Obama insiders ;including major players in his new administration.

Here are the biggies :

David Axelrod, Obama's "Karl Rove" . No one that I'm aware of was even naming him in the scandal.

Valerie Jarrett, Blago's "Senate Candidate #1.It is well known that she was Obama's 1st choice for the Senate seat. When it became clear that she was damaged goods Obama selected Jarrett as White House Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison ;a position that does not need confirmation.

Rahmbo Emanuel , White House Chief of Staff ......He had reportedly as many as 21 conversations with Blago's office during the period in question.

Tony Rezko, We detailed his advocacy as Obama's first fundraiser and adviser during the campaign . Rezko is "cooperating with authorities " and his cutting the best deal he can get . He is already convicted .

Where was the press ? You know if this was President Bush that this would've led the Sunday Morning talk circuit and would've been the front page of the Slimes.

It's entirely possible that these people are simply being called to give testimony of what Blago said to them. It doesn't mean that they made any deals with Blago or that they are guilty of anything.

True . Would Karl Rove had been given the benefit of the doubt or would we be hearing calls for a "frog-march" ?

Very true, Tex, but that misses the point about the double standard in the mainstream media. I saw nothing of this in my paper, which would be all too eager to jump on a Republican that received a parking ticket... reporting the location and time of the violation, amount of the fine, past history, make and model of vehicle and highlighting his party affiliation. When it comes to Blago they don't even want to say he's a Democrat, they darn sure don't want to hint at any possible developments related to their new king.

Whether true or not, Karl Rove's "reputation" within the administration was built over time; I doubt the press was all over him within a week of Bush taking the Presidency.

So let's cut the Obama people some slack until some inside information leaks out and suggests that someone inside the administration is pulling the strings, if at all.

----------

Added: As for the Blago situation, again, was the press as anti-Republican or anti-Bush days after Bush took the Presidency in 2000? I know you guys feel that the media is firmly anti-Bush, etc. Let's give them time to bore of this administration or find some dirt in order to boost there ratings. If in a year the love affair still continues I will be firmly on your side saying that there is a media bias that isn't good for the country.

Cut them some slack ? The only place I saw this is on the Chicago Sun-Times and other bloggers who picked up on it. The press would've been all over this from the 1st day of President Bush's term.

Maybe they are cutting the new President some slack because of the state of the union; economy in the tank, two wars.

There really isn't any option but for the press to support the new President, whether it is Barrack Obama or whether it was John McCain considering where we are as a nation right now. I think they would have given John McCain the same chance given that everyone wants some solutions to the situation we find ourselves and ANY President gives us new hope until they prove otherwise.

They didn't cut McCain any slack during the campaign, why would they cut him that kind of extraordinary slack had he won? They wouldn't, and I keep hearing from some here that it's the media's job to keep government and the politicians that run it accountable. It ain't the media's job to support the new president.

Yet another timely example of my point, Name That Party, Massachusetts Edition (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/26/name-that-party-massachusetts-edition/).

Hello righty's:

Poor, poor Republicans... Still sniveling over the liberal media... Maybe if the right wing's ideas were decent, the liberal media might change their minds.

But, WAIT a minute. We DID try that conservative crap for a while, didn't we?? DE-regulation, and trickle down economics... Yeah, I remember. All it did was put us in the dumper... I know, I know - it's Clinton's fault.

You guys are silly.

excon

If I'm not mistaken, while Blago was on Larry King Live, he did mention that a few of those names above were being called to give testimonies. Blago even hinted that Emanuel's testimony may clear him.

You guys are silly.

Sometimes even you inadvertently augment our point, ex. To consistently criticize Republican crooks and lowlifes yet say it's "silly" of us to wonder where’s the coverage and outrage over liberal crooks and lowlifes says a lot.

To consistently criticize Republican crooks and lowlifes yet say it's "silly" of us to wonder where’s the coverage and outrage over liberal crooks and lowlifes says a lot.Hello again, Steve:

Sorry. I misunderstood you. I think Blago is a lowlife and a crook. But, I thought you guys were badmouthing the press - not the guv.

You were, weren't you?

Look, Steve, I don't like 'em either. I think they're right wing as hell.

I think Obama should prosecute the war crimes of the previous administration... Frankly, I think THEIR lawbreaking, and the damage it caused, FAR exceeds anything this stupid Governor could to.

Yet, the liberal media wants to let bygones be bygones. Give Bush a pass. I don't think that's LIBERAL at ALL. In fact, I think it's real, REAL conservative. You don't?

How come the media is hated and liberal only SOME of the time??

excon

I say replace the party nomination process with a lottery. Anyone can sign up to be in this lottery, once a winner has been chosen from the ballots then the people get to vote.

How can it be much worse than the politicians we have now who it could be argued run for some sort of personal or special interest group gain.

This is a non-partisan issue, there are crooks and scumbags on both sides of the aisle.

I was badmouthing the press. Doesn’t change my point, it’s silly to think we’re silly for expecting the media to hold Dems as accountable as they’ve held Republicans over the last 8 years. I must have missed where the media is trying to let bygones be bygones with Bush. They are preoccupied with their new king, but I expect the Bush bashing to continue.

I must have missed where the media is trying to let bygones be bygones with Bush.Hello again, Steve:

You did:

In the last week alone, The Washington Post's David Ignatius twice said that those who advocate investigations into Bush crimes are nothing more than "liberal score-settlers." Newsweek's Jon Barry angrily accused those who advocate investigations of lying about their belief in the rule of law because (he can divine) that they are instead motivated by "vengeance, pure and simple."

That would the liberal Compost, and the liberal Snoozweek, as tom so eloquently puts it.

These are but two of the libs giving Bush a pass. I can find more. LOTS more.

excon

And this pathetic piece (http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/851947.html) by Leonard Pitts Jr. was in my paper the day before Obama's inauguration last week.

Or perhaps you missed Maureen Dowd's nice little column (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1) from last week. Or this (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x1708108989/COLUMN-Goodbye-and-good-riddance-George-Bush), and this (http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10275330.html), and this (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Confessions-of-a-Bush-Hate-by-steve-young-090120-894.html), all the gloating over Obama moving fast to "reverse Bush's legacy", and the news today that Congress has subpoenaed Rove?

BDS is alive and well.

all the gloating over Obama moving fast to "reverse Bush's legacy", and the news today that Congress has subpoenaed Rove? Hello again, Steve:

I DID read your pathetic little piece. I didn't say ANYWHERE in the artlcle, that he called for INVESTIGATIONS.

Calling for a reversal of Bush's legacy ISN'T calling for his trial. It IS what the VOTERS called for, however.

I see the old spin machine is alive and well over there.

excon

No, I guess it wasn't harsh enough to hope Bush lives long enough "to hear history itself tell you what an awful president you were."

Hello again, Steve:

Let me say this, in the clearest possible way. I don't want to send ANY message to Bush. I want to send a message to ANY future president who thinks he's above the law.

excon

Don't fret, ex, with the news that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture wants to prosecute Bush and Rumsfeld (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/722) and top Dems still pushing for an investigation (http://www.alternet.org/rights/122501/holy_cow:_top_dems_are_serious_about_investigating _bush%27s_criminal_acts/) I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty about investigations.

Here is Bush's " confession" Stalinist show trials and kangaroo courts are not needed .
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html
Screw the UN ! Why don't they hold a new convention on what to do with jihadi terrorists captured on the battlefield ? The only precident I can find is how they treated pirates... the navy held tribunals before they hanged them .