Though at the conclusion of learning all the facts, are you willing to accept the answers?

Speaking for no one but myself, yes. But I’m not expecting to hear any more answers. Gibbs dismissed the legitimate skepticism as silly and threw in one Republican’s endorsement (as if the Important Orrin Hatch’s opinion is going to change everyone’s mind), so it would appear as though the administration has no interest in discussing the topic any further.

Per The Final Word’s* link, here’s what Gibbs said, in case anyone was wondering:

Q Robert, I assume the President would like to win over Congressman Jim Matheson in the ongoing debate over health care. And I’d like to know if there’s anything the White House would like to tell the public who might wonder if there is anything coincidental, or more so, in the employment of Mr. Matheson’s brother to the 10th Circuit?

MR. GIBBS: I think this is — I think based on Mr. Matheson’s ABA rating, based on Mr. Matheson’s long legal resume, and based on the support he has from somebody important like Orrin Hatch, who has agreed to help shepherd his nomination through the Senate, I think it’s a pretty silly argument.

Q Would you like to extend that to what the Republican National Committee said was a blatant attempt to flip Mr. Matheson’s vote in favor of health care reform?

MR. GIBBS: I think that’s also a very silly argument.

I question the timing. I question a lot of things, though. Like what is the smoke monster? And was a more qualified person overlooked when they filled that judge’s seat?

*Not intended as a cut, just as an acknowledgment of zyzzyg’s creative moniker.

Yep, he has his priorities, however, they are not the public’s priority, or need even.

As Ms. Malkin’s often says ‘the Chicago Way’. Let’s hope it doesn’t end the same way Valentines Day did.

Might it be BRIBERRY?

On March 4th, 2010 at 5:45 pm, CO2 Producer said: #103

How do you know it’s unlikely? Do you have evidence of its unlikeliness? You admit this looks bad, but then you want the other people commenting here to calm down because the peculiar timing of this move may mean nothing. You can’t blame people for speculating when you are doing so, too.

My evidence is that the White House was asked about it and addressed the question directly. The answer made sense and I accept it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-3410

I won’t dispute the assertion that this may be coincidental, but when something smells as fishy as this does, expect people to ruminate about what is going on.

Yes, and I would like to know what the other nine inviduals are recieving for their family members? In the absence of any allegation that the other nine people are recieving any quid pro quo, I maintian my opinion, and reserve the right to revise it when additional information is found out.

Yep, keep asking questions. Nothing wrong with that.

People are way past the point of giving DC politicians the benefit of the doubt. For a bunch of folks who say they want to clean up the place, they have an odd way of showing it.

Yep, the optics on this one is bad. Not the first time, and it won’t be the last, that any administration has fumbled and flubbed.

Was this corruption or stupidity? If it was a coincidence, it was stupid. If it wasn’t a coincidence, then the people deserve to know about it.

Absolutely, full disclosure and addressing every single question should be the order of the day. The White House was queried and so should Rep Matheson and his brother be asked questions. At a minimum, release a statement and go on record. Well, this is far more important for Rep Matheson, not so much his brother. Though the brother will hopefully be asked about this at his confirmation hearing.

Though at the conclusion of learning all the facts, are you willing to accept the answers?

On March 4th, 2010 at 4:46 pm, babiesgrandma said: #102

And yet, strangely enough, the libs can “connect the dots” between a dog vomiting and Geo. Bush’s fault with ‘6 degrees of separation.’

Huh? Ummmm, OK.

On March 4th, 2010 at 4:32 pm, Flyoverman said: #101

I have to break this to you Z, but as a leader in a sensitive position of trust or great responsibility, when there are questions about your conduct, you are guilty until proven innocent.

There is no way I can disagree with more strongly.

Your statement violates every principle that our country stands for. Your statement is dispicable and offensive.

There are no separate and distinct covenants governing leaders, or the man on the street. ‘Guilt’ and ‘innocence’ are legal terms that can carry penalties, fines and prison terms.

Yes, there are issues of trust surrounding leaders, and they must answers questions. And, once the questions are answered, it is up to you to either accept or reject that answer. Are you willing to accept the answers? Are you willing to accept facts?

I previously asked you these questions and you have yet to address them. There is no rule that you must, though based on your argument it is now fine that I do not trust you.

[NOTE: That is why I do my level best to address every comment and question directed at me. You may not like the answer. You might think I go on too long. But, I am exceedingly forthcoming.]

It completely acceptable not to trust anyone, but it is unnacceptable not to trust the facts.

Been there, lived that. You are not “Joe Six Pack.” He wanted the job. Opening up his life and giving up his privacy comes with the job.

Yep. And I agreed. Though that leads to the question of where does it stop? Grade School?

Again, another question that I asked that you did not address. Well, maybe your saying, ‘opening up his life and giving up his privacy’ is a broad response to the question. Though I wonder why you couldn’t be more direct and say, ‘Yes, we should have access to his grade school records’.

Anyone giving such a person a pass is a fool. The more powerful the position the more important the vetting. It’s called Due Diligence.

No one should give anyone a pass. Yes, people should be vetted. Yes, due dilligence is absolutely necessary.

Will you acknowledge that we agree?

It is not, repeat, not a legal issue, but one of trust.

Then do not use legal terms like ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’. When trust is the issue then it must be verified. Once verified, what are you willing to do with the facts? Reject or accept them?

I do not have to provide you with any “evidence” as the topics I brought up one can readily find on reputable internet sources.

Nope. I asked you to cut and paste your assertion about what you allege I have said about Pres Obama.

How can you be trusted if your assertions are not verified?

None of these items are “tangents,” because they demostrate a CONSISTENT not isolated) pattern of behavior and conduct.

The thread is about the potential of any quid pro quo for a judgeship and getting a member of Congress to change their vote. The title of this thread is, “The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?”

Why should I trust this President when there are DOZENS of statements and incidents that lead one to conclude he should not be?

I am reluctant to speculate on why you should, or should not, trust someone. Though having your questions addressed is a beginning.

However, I am prepared to ask you again, that when your questions are addressed why are you unwilling to accept the answers?

Is it because you just do not want to believe whatever an individual tells you, on any issue?

I will agree that an individual’s reputation preceeds them, however that does not mean that on every single issue that person is misrepresenting the facts. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Trust but verify. Have Congressional hearings on as many issues that you find necessary. There is no proof of any quid pro quo, and yes, as I have said, the optics are bad. Beyond that I can not help you. You choose not to trust in the face of facts, so be it.