With all eyes on the Blagojevich trial, some hard truths and contradictions are coming to light. The Obama administration, already jolted by claims of corruption in their involvement in Democrat party primaries, is now facing new questions on Obama’s role in Balgojevich’s Senate seat pick. According to a memo released on December 23, 2008 by President-Elect’s Counsel-Designate Greg Craig, Obama never took an active role in the Illinois Senate seat appointment. However, sworn testimony from SEIU official Tom Balanoff says otherwise. According to Balanoff, who received a phone call from Obama on the eve of the 2008 election: "Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama told him. Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010. Obama said he wasn't publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill. "I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria," Balanoff said Obama told him. "I said: 'thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich." Clearly someone isn’t telling the truth. And with the pattern of events around the Sestak and Romanoff scandal, it would appear to be the White House. We have seen this pattern before. The White House has proven that when it comes to electioneering, it holds nothing back. Why wouldn’t Obama be involved in the appointment of the next Senator to his old Senate seat? It would seem natural that he would have an interest. Further, in the wake of the Sestak and Romanoff scandals, we now know that this White House plays in every election it can get its hands on. And, when asked of their involvement, they stonewall. Robert Gibbs has gotten pretty good at avoiding the tough questions of the Administrations roles in these elections, amongst other things. But here is what we all know. Blagojevich was attempting to sell the seat in Illinois. We know that Obama has denied having any role in the future of his former seat. And we now know that Obama may have been lying about his uninvolvement. After all, what does Tom Balanoff have to gain by lying under oath about a phone call from Obama? While it is important that people remain innocent until proven guilty, an Administration that is stonewalling on important questions that require serious answers does nothing but give off the appearance of guilt. It would behoove Obama and his staff to come clean and prove his role in the Blagojevich affair. After all, if Obama wants the trust of the nation, he should be up front with his actions.