Uh, no. It doesn't.
Your lie is exposed. Not to mention your stupidity in trying to get away with it with your own words here as a record.”
Again, you cannot read. Presumably, you want Obama’s personal papers from the state Senate. What else could you want want given that you screech about no records being available yet gleefully quote an acknowledgment that state records are available. If you are actually completely incoherent, and I have assumed otherwise, I apologize.
But to the point. If you want his personal records, he is under no legal obligation to maintain those. So you will never see what he doesn't have.
State...personal...state...personal... They are two different things. It's that reading comprehension thing again.
I read and comprehend well enough to see that I said that I said the state of Illinois does maintain records and you replied that it does not.
But to the point. If you want his personal records, he is under no legal obligation to maintain those. So you will never see what he doesn't have.
Sure, let's get to that point.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about the papers from his state legislative days, from 1997 to 2004.Obama first said, “We did not keep those records.”
He then elaborated: “Well, let’s be clear.
(snip)
“The stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.”
On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”
Sweet wrote that he replied: "Nobody has requested specific documents.”
But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”
And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers.”
Russert pressed Obama, who has touted his service in Springfield as proof of his experience, about his records of meetings with lobbyists.
“I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now,” Obama said. “And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.”
0baMao has clearly dissembled on the subject and his denial of having kept the records is couched in the semantics of "not archiving" them. He denies having any records but then answers someone else with "Nobody has requested specific documents” which obviously gives the impression that he has documents. His statement makes no sense if he does not.
During a campaign stop last fall, Obama at first claimed he did not have any records of his eight years in the Illinois state legislature. “I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records.”(snip)
However, according to a February 25th letter from the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State in response to Judicial Watch’s open records request, “The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama’s personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.”
Clearly the implication here is that he had records. He would have had to in order to do anything at all. All politicians do. Whether he archived his records or shredded them is beside the point. Whether he will or can produce them is beside the point. The point is he has not made any available and, like the rest of his history, his time in the IL senate is a blank due to his own actions.
"Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could."
Obviously you don't care.