About Rezko: Obama did nothing wrong. Obama did nothing illegal.

Obama is not responsible for any crimes that Rezko may have committed. Obama's credentials are spotless regarding community work in Chicago. One thing I am positive of, Obama would not be involved in any way with activities or individuals that would profit from the suffering of African Americans anywhere.

I have big problems with Obama, but Rezko is a non-issue and a non-story.

I hardly think Patrick Fitzgerald is doing this just to waste time, though. That seems out of character for him.

NT

suggested Obama may be involved with any wrongdoing.

It's his judgment for continuing to associate with this man that people are curious about.

from today's LA Times article:

"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?"

If guilt by association counts, then the Clintons would be on the gallows.

whne the indictment came down. He returned to face trial. I'm starting to wonder if Rezko is less the target than the means to get to the governor.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/104339,CST-NWS-rezko20.article

It reminds me of "Abramoff-related" campaign donations to Ds. There weren't any.

Still O. ought to return the money. (Maybe he has, I don't know.)

Every once in a while one of those connections turns out to be connected to someone who is a crook. The test of a politician is what they do after they discover that connected connection--not whether they have a crystal ball that can divine intent.

sorry to burst your bubble:

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."

...

The "slumlord" reference is backed up in part by a 2007 Chicago Sun-Times investigation that found that Rezko's low- income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many black families living in squalid conditions, sometimes without heat.

...

"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?"

more at link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-rezko23jan23,1,392172.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

add to this the assertion Obama made that he had received only "$60,000" from Rezko when in fact it was proven to be more than $168,000 and a disturbing pattern of obfuscation begins to emerge.

In the mid-1990s, Miner said, Rezko was viewed as an innovative developer intent on improving housing conditions, often working for church groups on Chicago's South Side.

"He became more interested in greener pastures," Miner said. "He got indicted. He became a bum. But in the 1990s, it was a very different picture."

"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?"

even associating with us because when their scandals strike they are ruinous to our party's image. Republicans have their Ken Lays and those guys, but people expect that out of Republicans.

but Rezko was all Obama's :evilgrin:

it was our party that had the perception of being corrupt, and it was the 1994 Republican Revolution that promised purity and incorruptibility. Here in Chicago, many Democrats are corrupt as hell, and the clean ones like Obama can be tarnished just by walking into the wrong room at the wrong time. Why? Because they have the power. It's unfortunate, but unavoidable.

Obama, to his credit, has led the way in ethics and transparency reforms in the Senate--something he undoubtedly understands the importance of, given his time under the Daley machine.

slimebuckets with us. I am fully aware of Chicago corruption. It is rampant. Milwaukee had its share recently as well. I am just sick of it because Republicans are more corrupt, but it is hard for us to run on this issue when we have these guys hanging around.

bought with Rezko helping and also buying the land next to it.

I think it's a story that has legs, if for nothing else, it shows that for all his talk about change, Obama is just like any other politician.

once they smell blood, they claw and claw, printing and reporting on stuff that might or might not have merit. They don't know the meaning of restraint, and Obama and his supporters are about to find this out.

No one is claiming he did anything illegal...wrong? Even Obama had (reluctantly) admitted he did something wrong in the land deal he was involved with...

The point is not illegality it is hypocrisy..if Obama is going to make an issue of Hillary's perfectly legal ties to lobbyists etc...while himself doing the exact same thing...he is going to get called on it...

Link?

Is there another land deal here, or just the house that he bought in a favorable market? A 15% discount off the list price is nothing unusual. Is there an allegation of something wrong when he subsequently get the adjoining lot?

doing anything wrong - NOBODY has said that he DID do anything wrong.

He paid a sixth of the sale price of the neighboring lot for a sixth of that neighboring lot. What is the problem with that?

He got a 15% price off the property he bought, in a buyer's market. Nothing unusual there.

When Rezko's schemes came to light, he turned Rezko's donations over to charity. To avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety - though there is nothing connecting him to Rezko's schemes.


There is no there, there.

just in case you missed thelink here it is again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html

Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser
Senator Bought a Parcel From His Neighbor, a Now-Indicted Political Operative

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 17, 2006; Page A06

snip>
In June 2005, in what Obama now describes as a "boneheaded" mistake, Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjacent properties on Chicago's South Side, closing the deals on the same day. Seven months later, wanting a bigger yard for his $1.65 million house, Obama bought a slice of the Rezko property for $104,500.

After news of the deal broke last month in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said he had erred by creating the appearance that Rezko had done him a favor by selling him a portion of the lot. For the first time since he entered the national spotlight, the 45-year-old freshman senator found himself on the defensive, discussing a personal decision he had come to regret.

"There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate," Obama said in a telephone interview Friday. "There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him."snip<

Bone headed is a very weak defense. Why not take responsibility for playing fast and loose? Donate all the money he saved on that purchase of land and house to charity. Really own your own underhandedness. No way! Money talks and BS walks.

Appearance, not actuality. He did nothing wrong, but he did purchase a sliver of land for someone who was under investigation. What was boneheaded was not waiting for the investigation to shake out before making the purchase - but of course, that would mean waiting possibly for years before he could expand his property, and then possibly having to face flack for buying property from a convicted swindler - not a good option.

Rezko owned that adjoining property. He legitimately purchased a part of it. What is underhanded about that?

The initial purchase had nothing to do with Rezko, and saving 300k on a $2mil property is only a 15% knockoff, which is nothing unusual for real estate.

He has scrupulously avoided even the appearance of crookedness for the very reason that partisans would make up shit about him if given the opportunity. That is what he regrets.

Did you even read the article?

is what is trouble to Obama reputation as a person above normal politics that he has tried to cultivate.

It doesn't matter that he may have done nothing wrong, it hurts Obama if this story blows up and his name is mentioned with Rezco.

Very kind.

This statement will come back to haunt him:

"Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed."

If this fact is true, it undermines the provisio 'When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him....'

COMPARE: "During the weekend, Obama gave to charity more than $40,000 in past political contributions linked to Rezko."

Give his office a call if you don't think so...

You have an agenda... Stop the nonsense and do some homework!... lets at least make an honest assessment of what happened. It is not honest to say that it "undermines the provisio 'when those problems were discovered, we returned the money from him'..." because you fail to mention he already did!!!


Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday that his campaign would give charities $40,350 in donations linked to his former friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman who has pleaded not guilty to federal influence-peddling and bank fraud charges.

Obama already has divested more than $44,000 in Rezko-affiliated donations during the last year. But Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said the campaign made a comprehensive review of donations affiliated with Rezko and "found some we'd feel more comfortable not having."

Burton pointed out that other presidential campaigns have disposed of questionable funds, and added, "Our consistent practice in these circumstances is to give the funds to charity out of an abundance of caution."

...
From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama's successful run for the Senate in the name of Glenview entrepreneur Joseph Aramanda, the story said.


He obviously already divested the direct contributions from Rezko and some other identified Rezko-affiliated donations they identified in their prelimineary assessment. So they did a thorough analysis and found some other funds from OTHER people with Rezko ties then divested the funds.

Keep on pushing propaganda it might stick... that is has been the strategy all along.

ARE you expecting people to believe it took years for Obama to realize this past weekend that he had accepted Rezko contributions which he should not have kept?

Hmmmm.... that does not pass the smell test.

I think you are missing my argument! You said... "If this fact is true, it undermines the provisio 'When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him....' " & "Obama to realize this past weekend that he had accepted Rezko contributions"

I said he already divested Rezko contributions.... and thus your slime & spin that he is JUST NOW returning Rezko contributions is compeletly false bc... DING DING DING... he already has...

The EVIDENCE I provided to support my CLAIM... is in the article... it reports the new divesting of funds are Rezko-affiliated... such as those by Joseph Aramanda... who is not Rezko by the way. You are slinging slime, intelectually dishonest, or Lazy... in any event... he already returned all contributions given (on his books) from person named Rezko... and your statement specifically states he hasn't which is wrong!

You are disingenuous in your protest.

I did not hide anything.

You cannot spin the facts I pointed out, and the conclusion that Obama undercut himself with these voluntary prepared statements.

Facts sure can be inconvenient sometimes.

Keep spinning dude...

You are disingenuous in your protest.
I did not hide anything.

yes you are... you are hiding the fact that he already gave specific funds provided to his campaign by person named Rezko!

You cannot spin the facts I pointed out, and the conclusion that Obama undercut himself with these voluntary prepared statements.

Why? Your only argument is he lying and you base this inference on his statement from the press release stating..."When problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed" and then you compare that what you said: COMPARE: "During the weekend, Obama gave to charity more than $40,000 in past political contributions linked to Rezko." The problem is the this juxtaposition of quotes misses the FACT/TRUTH that he gave up donations directly provided to him by Rezko a long time ago AND that they discovered some new contributions such as those from a person named Joseph Aramanda (NOT REZKO)... they divested those contributions as well.

You are creating an temporal gap to make it look like Obama is lying and that gap only exist if you assume he hadn't already donated specific donations from the specific person named Rezko back to charities... a long time ago... it is now obvious you are intestinally misleading people to make obama look bad... the problem is your claims aren't backed up by evidence... but keep crapping out the one-line claims without evidence...

So far I am unimpressed with his Campaign Strategists and their attempts to handle this problem which has explosive potential to damage Obama's chances.

As another poster on another OP pointed out, this 'Pandora's Box' has been opened,.... and now it is going to have to be addressed.

push poll type posting.

Don't you think by now, your MO is established enough as to your crocodile tear sentiments, covering your real motive in posting this story.

I don't like Obama at all, but at least I don't make any bones about it. This thinly veiled subterfuge is just plain stupid....Hilbot.

When there was ZERO evidence of wrongdoing in either case.