Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LA Times: Obama Rezko ties deeper than he has admitted...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:32 AM
Original message
LA Times: Obama Rezko ties deeper than he has admitted...


Longtime patron may be a problem for Obama

Alleged slumlord and indicted businessman Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has long supported the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has returned related donations.

CHICAGO -- Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama's Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.

...

A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.

...

For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.

In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.

Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

...


But a government watchdog group that once lauded Obama for leadership on ethics says the Illinois senator should have known better.

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

...

Obama has said repeatedly that he did nothing in exchange for Rezko's early and consistent support.

But in 1998, then-state Sen. Obama wrote to state and city officials urging them to provide funding for New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and Allison Davis. Obama wrote the letters, first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, on Illinois Senate stationery, saying: "This project will provide much needed housing for 4th Ward citizens."

...



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rezko23jan23,0,6946018.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. can't wait for the Clinton investments to start unraveling too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Rethugs have been trying to destroy them for years.
If they couldn't do it your pathetic whining hasn't a chance.

I cook with teflon. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gaiilonfong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I know they are waiting for those to be unearthed
IF she gets the nomination............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Compared to your girl and her ethically brain dead husband he's Mother Theresa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Obama is a light weight hypocrite trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes...
For someone in the limelight only a short time he sure is hip deep in the muck he is allegedly fighting against...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Would you care to extend that comment to their actual legislative histories?
He has always worked to reform government and add transparency to the process. The Clintons, not so much.

Stop drinking the haterade; it's beneath you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. It's beneath you to continue to deny Obama's hypocrisy on this issue...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Yeah because "present" votes are so transparent.
:eyes:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. Your "girl"?
WTF? Your not doing your candidate any favors by referring to Senator Clinton as a girl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Guess you missed this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. That's different
and you know it. Is it OK if I refer to Sen. Obama as your "boy"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Has Obama referred to himself that way?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Who has the LA Times endorsed in the primary?
Just wondering... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
31. They have, in the past, been fulsome in their praise for Obama to date, almost fawning, so this is a
departure for them, this article. They're going to pick one from Column A and One from Column B, for the primaries.

The last endorsement they ever did was NIXON, but they're getting back in the game.

The paper has not endorsed yet, near as I can tell and this article indicates: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-mcdougal20jan20,0,484436.story

The perils of picking presidents
template_bas
template_bas
By Dennis McDougal
January 20, 2008
Sometime in the next few weeks, the Los Angeles Times will endorse two candidates -- a Democrat and a Republican -- in the Feb. 5 California presidential primary. A few months later, the paper will endorse a candidate for president.

These will be the first such endorsements the paper has made in 35 years. Although The Times routinely weighs in on ballot propositions and local and statewide political races, it has declined to endorse in a presidential race since it backed Richard Nixon in his successful 1972 reelection campaign.

The move back into the presidential endorsement business after such a long hiatus is an intriguing one, coming as it does at a moment when newspapers generally are declining in influence and fighting for their lives. The first endorsements will appear just weeks after the paper has been sold to a new owner.

But to consider it in its proper context, it is also important to understand why the paper stopped endorsing a generation ago. That was a complicated decision -- and one that told a story about the newspaper itself, about the Chandler family that owned and ran it, and about the long, complex relationship between Nixon and the paper.

In 1972, The Times was growing in influence. Circulation was in excess of 1 million a day. The Times -- and the Chandlers -- were tied into all the big political events of the region and, increasingly, the country. Even though Nixon was riding a tidal wave of support as the election approached, there was no question that The Times' influence helped sweep him into office, as it had done so many times before. In a belated birthday greeting he sent to then-publisher Otis Chandler on Dec. 4, 1972, Nixon wrote at the bottom in his own hand: "The Times editorials were great during the campaign."

......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm so glad the Clintons are only supported by Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. K&R OF Course Cause Obama Is AlMOST as Big A fibber As Hillary... Keep The Pressure on!!!
:kick: it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
9. Much of this is NEWS to me. I only was aware of this bit, and not even to this level of detail:
Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

It's that "paying full price in a slow market" when the new neighbor got a DEEP discount that, well, rings alarm bells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Ya think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Right. The Obamas bought half the lot with a big house on it for
$300,000. Ms Rezko buys the other half of the lot with no house on it for $650,000. Someone explain this to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. That is exactly what Obama needs to address and quickly.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. $1,650,000, not 300K
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Got it. Misunderstood article. Thanks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
33. What 'deep discount'?
15%. That's what the buyer of my mother's house got - her asking price was $150k, she accepted $132k. $300K off a $2mil property is not at all unusual.

you're making shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. Well, there Bright Eyes, it was a deep discount compared to what his NEIGHBOR paid.
I'm not 'making shit up.' I'm paraphrasing what the fucking article says. He got a big rakeoff, as contrasted to his 'neighbor' (wife of a fundraiser who has been with him from the start) who paid full price ON THE SAME DAY--and THEN, worked a nice little deal with him.

You're spinning desperately. This IS curious. And so are all the other issues raised in the article.

I don't think you are a real estate expert based on an anecdote about your mom's little house, sorry.

You actually are trying to shop the idea that it is "normal" to pay full price for an unimproved lot next to a house that sells for a 'paltry' fifteen percent discount, with a straight face?

Sorry, NOT buying it. Anyone with half a brain isn't, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Hey, STOP WITH THE FUCKING NAME CALLING.
When you don't have an argument you call people names. I've asked you not to do this before.

Stick to the fucking subject.

Houses ALWAYS list at higher than market price. A 15% reduction is NOT unusual. And what does Rezko's deal with the property owner have to do with Obama? How does it benefit Obama that Rezko paid the list price for the undeveloped lot, and then Obama later paied well above market to purchase a portion of that lot? The fact that Rezko paid the list price could simply mean that there was no grounds to bargain for a lower price - and undeveloped lot is all potential. Much easier to put a real value on, as there is no question of having to deal with potential problems with existing structures and the needs of the new occupants.

So, yes. I've been through three house purchases and subsequent sales, on my own, plus my mother's house and every one was listed between 10 and 20% higher than the actual selling price. In fact, my mother was first advised (before the cracks in the real-estate bubble began showing) to list at 175k - selling at 132k would be what, a 25% discount off list? She didn't, because we saw the slump coming and didn't want to have it on the market for years, unable to sell at anything near that price. But that was the advice of the real estate experts. So, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I'm not calling you a name. A bit hypersensitive, eh? You might cut back on caffeine...
because you are excessively excited for no good reason--unless maybe you realize you are defending the indefensible, and taking it out on me.

You apparently do NOT know what you are talking about, because you have made a statement or two that had substantial errors of fact contained therein.

Houses DON'T "always list at higher than market price." Here, I'll give you an anecdote from my own region, New England, from last week--the house around the corner from me listed and sold at ASSESSED price in this soft market. Of course, in a good market, it would have listed at far higher than assessed price because it is a stunning home, but the owner wanted to/needed to unload it quick, and off it went.

I lived in a highly desirable neighborhood in VA, a Beltway haven that was a quick shot to government offices in DC and the Pentagon. The house down the street from me was the subject of a BIDDING WAR between three buyers who "had to have" it and it sold for twenty two grand OVER the asking price. Not under--OVER.

So don't go using "always" because you'll "often" be wrong.

And if you know so doggone much about real estate, there, ReMax, you should know that undeveloped lots are "often" a good deal in a soft market, you can get a nice rake off because there's so much good, already built inventory available--there's lots of choice for the homebuyer, so why build your own? Get something that's nicely broken in, has no issues that can be identified after years of use, and improve it, for far less than you would spend building new.

I think it's funny as hell that you are so frantically pulling these excuses out of your wazoo and spinning like a top defending Rezko over a deal that plainly stinks on ice. Keep it up! The guy's a crook. His only hope is to hope Obama gets elected....and pardons his ass.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. There is no ne news here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
13. I , too, can hardly wait
until the BIG Sleaze money behind H.C. is revealed Start with Terry McAucliffe, and Mark Penn, her closes advisers. H.C.'s connection to sleaze money is McAucliffe who is closely connected to very shady money sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. Imagine what the Repub Nominee would do with this information if Obama is the Democratic Nominee?
Not only will Obama's relationship to and activities with Rezko be fully and completely disclosed by the Republican Nominee, it will likely be twisted to appear much worse than it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Obama nomination = Repig in the White House
I'm sure of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
23. No news here...
Anyone who follows Obama already realizes he is all talk, no action. Form over substance, as it were.

The only people genuinely surprised are his supporters, whose Cognitive Dissonance won't let them ever acknowledge truth which is disquieting. Taken as a whole, this group emulates the "Robot" from "Lost In Space", "that does not compute". "that does not compute".......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
24. Once stuff like this comes out, it ain't gonna stop...
...there'll be a lot more stories about obama and his ties to this guy now that the floodgates are open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
25. This Rezko Trial on Feb 25 will be covered 'wall to wall' so ignoring it won't make it go away...
... and according to press accounts Rezko will have to agree to plead guilty by Feb 1 to take advantage of the more lenient sentencing provisions based upon early acknowledgement of guilt.

This matter is going to be a press leader days before the Super Tuesday Primaries. Surely the Obama strategists are aware of this --and have a plan for countering the negative publicity likely to be linked to their candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
26. The Hillary airing of this in the S.C. Debate has really done Obama a favor...
... He can now address this in the context of responding to a 'mischaracterization' of his relationship to and activities with Rezko by putting the best face possible on it.

It has been a ticking time bomb for some time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
28. obama`s been tried and convicted at the du kangaroo court
fortunately there is a real court system that actually does function in this country. that court system actually demands proof and not opinions or hearsay. of course many do not wish the real court system to prove innocence or guilt of any canidate.

this trial is not about obama it is about rezko. if there is any evidence that leads to obama`s indictment then so be it.
the people of illinois will then decide who we wish to represent us in the senate..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. The "DU court" doesn't matter. What the Democratic voters think will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
29. The guy looks like a cross between Doctor Phil and Artie Bucco--the Chef on the Sopranos


With maybe a dash of Bernie Kerik:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allinktup Donating Member (318 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
35. Screaming Whitewater doesn't make it true...
Hillary should remember that. What a hypocrite she is becoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. Now Obama has actually made the matter worse with this response... LINK
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_el_pr/obama

He says he had no inkling of a problem with Rezko, but as soon as he did he gave the money back or donated it to charity.

Problem: Obama returned or donated to charity $40k in Rezko contributions in the last few days.

THis is not good damage control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I don't think that is the only aspect
I think it is a judgment issue, as well. He entered into that STUPID land deal when the guy was under investigation--and it was "widely reported." That's .... HUBRIS.

Obama, an Illinois senator, also said it was a mistake for him to have purchased a strip of land from Rezko's wife. The land adjoins the Obamas' Chicago home. Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
39. Best of luck on that line of attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
40. 900k going from taxpayers to Rezko's firm thanks to Obama's lobbying
And we are to believe everything was kosher here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC