White House Grants Jarrett Ethics Waiver to Lead Efforts to Bring 2016 Olympics to Chicago

It's not bad enough that the legal profession is such that 'ethics' is taught in law schools. Hmmm, I thought that was something we were taught at home and in Sunday schools, back in the days when we were taught the difference between right and wrong. Now we seem to have lost the understanding of the term "illegal alien," and have things like "ethics WAIVERS." I'm curious, have more ethics waivers been issued in this administration than previous administrations? I never even heard the term before this evening. It also sounds illegal and UNETHICAL. And why is Valerie Jarrett going to Denmark too? Is it true she is going on a separate jet? Hmmmm.

You know in the primarys ,we knew about Jarrett,Emmanual,Axlerod and Blagoavich but there was little coverage about these ties and what it could mean,people were just called racists if they objected to anything .I guess thats what made them unheard? they made Blago a sacrificial lamb{although he isn't lamb like just more of the same} and if he is guilty so are the rest because they all have the same connections and money support

so why does Obama and crew get a pass on lobbyists,and transparency,wars,prisons,Bahgram, and appointing, with no obvious shame, the kind of people with backgrounds embedded in Chicago corrupt politics,even moving his campaign there for starters? Why are the people objecting not being given coverage? I know most of the msm has been part of the problem but WHY? The wall street corruption that donated most to Obama and now getting the major money in bailouts? Are we going to have to wait eight years to question this thoroughly?I guess Rayethon will have access to the war money just like bush.Even more wars than bush.I am a dem and not happy!

Barack Obama is going to learn a very hard lesson one of these days. Unless he stands up loud and clear against Chicago Mayor Daley's corruption and dictatorship, he will eventually get swallowed into the Daley corruption scandal that will soon explode when he's indicted, which will happen sooner or later. The Blago scandal was just the tip of the iceberg. Putting Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel around Barack Obama is like putting a political noose around one's neck that Daley can pull at will.

The media and anyone interested in integrity and ethics should not let Obama get away with this unnecessary waiver.

Obama should revoke the waiver and keep Valerie Jarriet, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel completely out of the Olympic bid process since they all have conflict-of-interests.

I also think Obama would be making a big mistake getting too involved with this bid since Chicago's corruption problems are very deep and can take him down.

I agree completely the person in this role must be independent and not have conflict-of-interests.

Akif Malik, who had the vision and founded the Olympic bid effort, would be a great choice. Mitt Romney would be ironic, but the choice that would really shake-up cronyism and give Mayor Daley and his cronies a wake up call would be:

Patrick Fitzgerald

With the widespread corruption in Chicago and potential billions involved with the Olympics, the U.S. Attorney's Office should start investigating now before the damage is done.

President Obama's biggest potential downfall is his connections to the corruption in Chicago. Mayor Daley's aides surround Obama (Jarrett, Axelrod, Emanuel) and Obama is making a huge mistake allowing any waiver for Valerie Jarrett.

Instead, he needs to distance himself from anyone with connections to Mayor Daley. Only someone independent who has not been employed by Daley, worked for Daley, appointed by Daley or anything related to Daley, should be in this role. Obama has to put the interests of America and himself ahead of Daley. This is an invitation for disaster.

Plus, Chicago's bid has gone from the original independent effort of the 90's into a very crony-full mayoral political operation. The face of the bid shouldn't be a couple old white guys who play politics in Chicago (Daley and Pat Ryan). That's a big mistake, too.

I guess we should test her for performance enhancing drugs..

ABC News has been requesting copies of these letters of recusal since February, to no avail.
-----------------------------------
How about a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get these documents? This White House promised "Transparentcy" didn't they?

Obviously, this is ethical hypocrisy by the Obama administration even if Valerie Jarrett were "ideal" in any way, but since she has several conflict-of-interests from her relationship to the mayor to her lobbying to employment with Habitat, the proper thing would be to have someone actually independent without any conflicts be the White House coordinator.

If it's someone who knows the Olympic bid, Chicago and Olympic world well, there's no better choice than the founder of Chicago's Olympic bid, Akif Malik, who started the original independent bid effort in the 90's and again in 2005. Or if he's not available, perhaps Peter Ueberroth, the former Chairman of the US Olympic Committee, although he may have a conflict due to the USOC. Or maybe Mitt Romney, who ran Salt Lake City's Winter Games and wants to be in the White House anyway.

This is a great way for Obama to pay off all his crooks/cronies in Chicago! Excellent!

Posted by: tin can
----------------------------------------
And watch the racketeers use all types of Chicago-land fraud tactics to line their pockets. ACORN will probably provide "security."

This is most unfortunate for several reasons and the media should not be fooled by the lame excuse for the Olympic Bid.

* Valerie Jarrett has numerous conflict-of-interests, not just with her association with Chicago 2016, but considering her relationship and employment with Mayor Richard Daley, who's regime has been under numerous federal investigations. Chicago 2016 is being directed by the City of Chicago and as one of Daley's chief cronies, she has zero objectivity to act against the mayor and for the best interests of anyone else, including the current President.

* There is a false premise that she must coordinate anything. There are plenty of people who could coordinate the federal role (which by law must be extremely limited with the Olympic Games) who don't have conflict-of-interests. She is NOT ideal and, on the contrary, cannot serve the President of the United States properly on these issues because of her conflicts with the mayor and his cronies.

* Everyone outside of Chicago must understand clearly corruption thrived under people like Daley, Jarrett and people like Axelrod, Emanuel have all looked the other way. The idea Gov. Blagojevich is the poster child for corruption is incorrect. He worked for Daley, too. On the same day he was arrested, so was his Chief of Staff, who worked for Daley. All paths to corruption lead to Richard M. Daley.

* It should be noted Valerie Jarrett was put on the Chicago 2016 board for one reason...to protect the mayor's interests. Everyone involved is there to do the mayor's agenda. The original bid effort started in the 90's and wasn't even Mayor Daley's idea.

* President Obama promised CHANGE and he wouldn't do politics-as-usual. He is choosing lobbyists, cronyism and the old-style of politics instead of sticking to prinicples, his promise to the people and allowing himself to be associated with corruption-tainted individuals. Obama is making the wrong choice and it's a direct slap to his so-called efforts at ethics reform for the White House.

The media shouldn't be fooled by the "let's get the Olympic Games" smoke-n-mirrors tactic. If integrity and ethics are the issue, Valerie Jarrett shouldn't be anywhere near the Olympic bid if she serves the White House.

Obama should revoke the waiver immediately.

Rev. Wright is cleaner than Jerrett. Revolution we can believe in!

May I inquire why you would be inclined to distrust the loyalties of former lobbyists, assuming that in compliance with the law they have divested themselves of all beneficial interest in the fortunes of their former firms?
****************************************************
Because I'm not inclined to believe in the fairy tale phrasing of your question --especially after the number of lobbyists scams and general influence peddling that was rampant during the Bush. admnistration. I don't think the 100 lobbyists in regulatory postions like the FDA were good for the country, anymore than the Cheney/Haliburton debacles. For instance, the Haliburton subsidiary, KBR, whose shoddy work electrocuted soldiers, also overcharged the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for their no-bid contract work. No, I don't share your idealism about either lobbyists or beneficial interests not interfering with government.

"Then I take it, Facist Hyena, that you would have no problem with a former ACLU lobbyist working in the Justice Department. or a former labor union one in the Department of Labor."

You are absolutely correct, Kim. I might be unhappy that someone with an ACLU bent was in DoJ, or someone affiliated with a labor union was in the Labor department, but the fact that they had been lobbyists would not affect my views a single iota. My problem with those two people would be the political differences I have with them, but an ACLU lobbyist is no more likely to have kooky left-wing views than a founder of the ACLU women's rights project, viz. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Had Ms. Ginsburg been a lobbyist instead of the founder of that project, she would be not one bit more or less trustworty.

In short, I deplore the views of the people in your example (assuming that they share the views of the people for whom they lobby), but what on earth does lobbying have to do with it?

Thank you for your kind remarks about my refreshing objectivity and idealism.

May I inquire why you would be inclined to distrust the loyalties of former lobbyists, assuming that in compliance with the law they have divested themselves of all beneficial interest in the fortunes of their former firms?

Then I take it, Facist Hyena, that you would have no problem with a former ACLU lobbyist working in the Justice Department. or a former labor union one in the Department of Labor. I find your objectivity to lobbyists and expression of idealism concerning their undivided loyalty quite refereshing, sir.

Amber--There is no conflict whatsoever. Lynn's undivided duty is to his current employer, DoD, and he is forbidden to accept any compensation or benefits from his former employer. He has no incentive of any kind to favor them over any other company.

Mr. Obama's "ban" on lobbyists was simply transparent pandering and an example of his trashy populism. He knows that the yokels--yes, that would be you and many others--believe that there is something wrong, even evil, abbout lobbyists, although such yokels have not a clue what they are talking about. Purely a phantom bogeyman to trash to the public, but good people to employ when you need the expertise they have gained when in the business of lobbying.

Amber dear, why don't you tell us what you understand the term "conflict of interest" to mean. And then tell us why
Mr. Lynn has a conflict.
**********************************************

Mr. Fascist Hyena- You seem to really love lobbyists unlike most Americans these days whatever their party. As far as conflict of interest goes I think it would really be crappy if because Lyn is in the Defense Department that Raytheon would start getting a the lions share of defense contracts. And EXCUSE ME I didn't say he had a conflict of interest but it looks like there could be one or the potential on one . Nighty night, dont let the bugs bite.

This is a great way for Obama to pay off all his crooks/cronies in Chicago! Excellent!

The New York Times spots a cloud no bigger than a man's hand:

"Already, in the first six months of this fiscal year, the federal deficit is running at $956.8 billion, or nearly one seventh of gross domestic product — levels not seen since World War II, according to Wrightson ICAP, a research firm.

"Debt held by the public is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to rise from 41 percent of gross domestic product in 2008 to 51 percent in 2009 and to a peak of around 54 percent in 2011 before declining again in the following years. For all of 2009, the administration probably needs to borrow about $2 trillion.

"The rising tab has prompted warnings from the Treasury that the Congressionally mandated debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion will most likely be breached in the second half of this year."

Last week, the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of industry officials that advises the Treasury on its financing needs, warned about the consequences of higher deficits at a time when tax revenues were 'collapsing' by 14 percent in the first half of the fiscal year."

Anybody wanna bet it declines after 2011?