Replies

Why hide all? Possibly to cover some inconvenient fact in one. Suppose he had something to hide in only one transcript. If he reveals all but that one, then we now know where to focus our concern. We know he lied about his association with Ayers and when he first met him. We also know that they worked together on education issues. Why would Ayers select him for the foundation? Was Ayers a teaching assistant while at Bank Street?

Fred Nerks probably won’t mind my transferring his post to this thread:

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
To: JJR RNCH; LucyT

He won’t allow his transcript from his undergraduate days at Columbia University to be released.

He “lost” his thesis on Soviet nuclear policy (see “Where in the World is Obama’s Missing Thesis“ which might provide insight regarding his seeming lack of knowledge about Soviet policy during the Kennedy years).

He won’t answer questions about his days at Harvard Law School.

He “lost” his Illinois Senate records.

He will only release a simple one-page letter from his doctor on his medical condition.

He won’t release his application to the state bar, which, as National Review’s Jim Geraghty notes raises questions about whether he told the truth about parking tickets and drug use, among other issues.

He won’t disclose list of his clients from his law firm days or the nature of the work he did for them as a lawyer (his clients include the indicted political fixer Tony Rezko).

He walks away from uncomfortable questions about Rezko at a news conference.

His cultists try to shut down inquiry into his stewardship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge by sliming a journalist investigating his days at the helm of that group, which blew through $100 million dollars with no discernible benefit for the schools and students that it was putatively designed to help (what does the constitutional law lecturer say to the chilling of free speech by his acolytes?)...

P.U.M.A.

15 posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:07:03 AM by Fred Nerks