Barack Obama gives the Tony Rezko story the life it has

[MethuenProgressive]

Source: Chicago Tribune

But journalists are still looking because they're not satisfied that they have the full story.
And that's Obama's fault. At some point early in his campaign for the White House, he apparently decided he'd said all he wanted to say and all there was to say about his dealings with Rezko. He would not grant follow-up interviews on the subject to investigative reporters, and his staff provided written and often inadequate responses to written questions.

Maybe he thought the questions were irritating -- picky, repetitive, dripping with insinuations. Maybe he thought there was so little to this would-be scandal that reporters would forget about it and move on to another politician's curious entanglements. Or maybe ...
Well, it sure looked like he was hiding something.
This was bonehead deluxe. Megabonehead. Boneheadissimo.
Rezko's looming trial date (it's next month) was bound to exhume any part of the story that had died. The national media was inevitably going to want to take a crack at the story that places Obama squarely in the skeezy milieu of Illinois politics. And if he became a top contender, his rivals were bound to look for ways to play the Rezko card and throw him off for at least a few news cycles.

Spring of last year would have been the time for Obama and his advisers to write "The Audacity of Tony," a meticulous, utterly honest, month-by-month, day-by-day account of all his dealings with Rezko since 1990.
Then to scrub all his political accounts of any donations somehow attributable to Rezko (instead of doing this by conspicuous degrees).
And, finally, to sit with interested reporters until he'd addressed every last question they might still have about the legal work he did for non-profits who worked with Rezko and the granular details of the real estate deal.
His failure to have done this for 15 months doesn't speak to a guilty conscience so much as it speaks to dubious crisis-management skills.


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-zorn_31jan31,1,1308381.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

---

Obama shouldn't continue the coverup. He should come clean. Before Super Tuesday. (But don't bet on it...)

[blm]

1. Jackson Stephens gave WalMart, Bush1, BillClinton, BCCI, Dubai the life they have

when he bankrolled their interests starting in the 70s.

[papau]

3. OK - a great 7 degrees of separation game - how do we get Syria, Rezko w/ Stephens?

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=2474&name=Jackson-Stephens

[blm]

4. A shame some Dems kept Stephens protected for Poppy Bush throughout the 90s, eh?

It's not like that protection led to anything tragic like 9-11, eh?

Oops - - yes, it did.

[papau]

15. Dems kept Stephens protected for Poppy Bush - OK - again I guess I missed the memo - what

did Dems do to "protect" Stephens - and from whom or from what charge - and how did this affect Clinton - and how did this lead to 9/11?

[MADem]

2. This story is why the reporters wanted his legislative correspondence from IL

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Barack Obama, who's been scolding Hillary Rodham Clinton for not hastening the release of records from her time as first lady, says he can't step up and produce his own records from his days in the Illinois state Senate.
He says he hasn't got any.

"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," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."

Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse—he left in 2004—stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.

"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded."... Obama did not keep any correspondence with the general public. Ditto for letters to or from state associations and lobbyists, memos on legislation and correspondence with Illinois state agencies. The campaign said Illinois agencies have copies of his requests for information or help, but accessing those records would involve contacting the agencies and asking them to comb though eight years of records to find correspondence from Obama.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8STLEOG0&show_article=1&catnum=0

[indimuse]

6. Chicago columnist reports that Obama, called for "transparency in government"not interested in self

WHERE is Obamas Records during his time in Senate?
While in State government here in Illinois, Barack was known as a "nice guy," but has little to show for his years in state government. He was never particularly known by the public at large as a vocal leader and was rarely out in front of any issue. In fact, few Illinoisans even knew his name at all until he ran for the Senate seat against Alan Keyes. He was an unknown, a non-entity as far as state politics was concerned.

Yet, the Obama camp has made no effort to assist investigators to look into his state records. In fact, Senator Obama has blithely claimed that his records have been thrown out. Chicago columnist Lynn Sweet reports that Obama, who has called for "transparency in government" from his rivals, is not much interested in revealing his own documents.

"I was in the state Senate for eight years," Obama said. "I had one staff person, that was what was allocated. I don't have archivists in the state Senate. I don't have the Barack Obama State Senate Library available to me, so we had a bunch of file cabinets. I do not have a whole bunch of records from those years. Now, if there are particular documents that you are interested in, then you should let us know...As I said, I didn't have the resources to ensure that all this stuff was archived in some way...it could have been thrown out."

Hillary and Edwards have BOTH turned theirs over...even Hillary's records as First Lady have been scrutinized, WHERE are the records for Senator Obama? Lost?
that is the MOST intelligent thing you can say?
ALL the RECORDS are MISSING the ENTIRE time he was Senator! NOT just RECENT ones, this came up because Barrack asked for everyone elses records which have been produced look at MSNBC.com for the full reports!

They appear to have conviniently vanished into thin air & sadly, when you ask intelligent questions like this which NEED to be asked & answered.

[chinadoll815]

16. I don't think it is fair to equate record keeping of state senator to national ones

I don't think it is fair to equate record keeping of a state senator to that of national ones, or to a White House administration - they simply do not have the resources available. Not to say there shouldn't be something, and there is:

"“In the state Senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois.
“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.”

Also, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday morning that Obama "Senior strategist David Axelrod said Sunday night, 'Files pertinent to ongoing casework were passed to Kwame Raoul, his successor.' ""

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6821.html

I don't know if Obama has anything to hide or not, but vaninshing schedules just don't bother me....

[beberocks]

5. What bothers me is why there is so little media coverage of this and Obama's drug use.

And before you flame me--don't think for a minute that the RNC won't use Rezko and Obama's cocaine habit in a (IMO) very effective way if he is the GE candidate. I don't think that many Obama supporters really know his record or problems thanks to the media's adoring coverage of him (while they slam Clinton). I think the MSM is trying to set Obama up as the GE candidate because they know the repuke candidate will be able to beat him.

[boricua79]

11. habit? give me a freaking break!

The man tried it back in the day, and ADMITTED, unlike a coward who didn't "inhale". It's not like he has a chronic "habit".

THe Repuke candidate will not be able to win against Barack Obama. His charisma and cross-party appeal is way aheads of Clinton. In fact, there are a lot of moderate Republicand and Independents who like Barack Obama.

If there is anyone people are tired off, it's Clinton and DLC-litists. We don't want more of that establishment crap.

The RNC can bring all it wants about his cocaine use. I can't wait to see Barack Obama deflate those claims. I don't think the American people really care that he did back when he was young. Most americans would probably appreciate the honesty and know in their hearts that THEY themselves had done things in their youth that were not right.

[liberal1973]

13. Drug use?

lol.. that was awhile back.

McCain is not going to be our next President. Both of our candidates is as good as this far right republican.

[magatte]

25. What media blackout? There have been countless articles detailling that nothing wrong ever happened

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko

[TankLV]

7. Obama's a CROOK & a LIAR!

real NICE...

The more he and his bots TRY to defend him, the more GUILTY he looks...

Obama IS hiding something...

we don't need another bush* or dick in OUR White House...

[magatte]

24. You hillary supporters are dis gusting... This article just said that there is NOTHING to it.

But you obviously can read through your hate-filled eyes.

[Stephanie]

8. What a non-story. "We haven't found any wrong-doing, but we'll keep looking."

Local news organizations began exploring all the intricacies of Obama's long-term relationship with the shady moneyman and putting to the test Obama's early claim, "{Rezko} never asked me for anything. I've never done any favors for him."

Nothing significant has surfaced to contradict the essence of that claim or prove Obama acted unethically. But journalists are still looking because they're not satisfied that they have the full story.

[Stephanie]

9. I'm curious to know why this is on the home page with only 8 posts and 3 recs.

What's the criteria there? There's nothing substantive in this column, it's an opinion piece, the only thing going for it is the sensational headline.

[liberal1973]

12. I agree

something is messed up about that.

[Stephanie]

14. This doesn't belong in LBN either - it's an opinon piece by a columnist.

I think the mods are bending over backward in trying to be fair and balanced, but this is not right.

[jillan]

18. funny - it's in 'editorials & other articles' on my computer.

[Stephanie]

20. Mods moved it from LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3163737

[stillcool]

10. Maybe this will help?

From Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011#landdeal

* Land deal

On November 1, 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Obama and Antoin "Tony" Rezko -- who had "pleaded not guilty to federal charges involving pay-to-play allegations that surround Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration" -- bought adjoining properties on the same day in 2005 and that as Obama and Rezko "jointly worked to improve their side-by-side properties, the two men entered an ongoing series of personal financial arrangements." The Tribune article alleged no wrongdoing and quoted Obama saying: "I haven't been involved with in any legislative work whatsoever or any government activities of any sort." The article noted: "In normal circumstances, the two real estate transactions probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. There is, after all, nothing illegal or untoward about an aggressive developer buying hot property next door to a rising political star." Indeed, the only apparent cause for the article's existence was that "these are not normal times for either Obama or Rezko."

Even though the article alleged no wrongdoing on Obama's part, the Tribune editorialized two days later, writing that "the senator's real estate tie to Rezko threatens to leave Obama hoisted by his ethics petard."

More than a month later, Slate.com teased a December 14 article, headlined "Barackwater" and written by Slate chief political correspondent John Dickerson, by suggesting that the article exposed a "Shady Real Estate Deal" involving Obama. The article, whose headline was a reference to the Clinton-era Whitewater real-estate "scandal," which gave rise to an extensive, multimillion-dollar investigation that turned up no evidence of illegality by the Clintons, in fact explained that there is "no evidence" Obama did anything wrong.

But even with the constant refrain that Obama had not "been accused of wrongdoing," as the AP reported, the discussion of the land deal came up again following Obama's announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee. For instance, on the January 20 edition of Fox News Watch, Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton asserted that one of "the questions about a fellow ... named Barack Hussein Obama" is "about this land deal he had." Similarly, during a report on the January 16 edition of ABC's Nightline, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper asked, "Just who the hell is Barack Obama?" and noted that voters "may not like what they hear about a questionable land deal was involved in with a political operative since indicted for fraud."

..and the Sun Times:

Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?

A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.

I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.

Q:. Have you or your wife participated in any other transactions of any kind with Rezko or companies he owns? Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies?

A: No.

Q: Has Rezko ever given you or your family members gifts of any kind and, if so, what were they?

A: No.

Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?

A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.

Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?

A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.

Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?

A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.

Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.

Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

Q: Why did you put the property in a trust?

A: I was advised that a trust holding would afford me some privacy, which was important to me as I would be commuting from Washington to Chicago and my family would spend some part of most weeks without me.

Q: A Nov. 21, 1999, Chicago Tribune story indicates the house you bought "sits on a quarter-acre lot and will share a driveway and entrance gate with a home next door that has not yet been built." Is this shared driveway still in the mix? Will this require further negotiations with the Rezkos?

A: The driveway is not shared with the adjacent owner. But the resident in the carriage house in the back does have an easement over it.

Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?

A: I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.

With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.

But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.

Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.

Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?

A: At the time, it didn't strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.

Q: Have you been interviewed by federal investigators about this transaction or about your relationship with Rezko? If not, do you intend to approach them?

A: I have not been interviewed by federal investigators. I have no reason to approach them.

Q: Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?

A: No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interests. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls91/pdf/910SB1017_05251999_001000C.PDF)

Q: Has this disclosure about your relationship with Rezko changed your thoughts about a White House run?

A: No. As I have said, how I can best serve is something I will think about after the 2006 election next Tuesday.

Q: Did Rezko ever discuss with you his dealings with Stuart Levine, Christopher Kelly or William Cellini or the role he was playing in shaping Gov. Blagojevich's administration?

A: No.

Q: Are the Obamas the only beneficiaries of the land trust?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you aware of any efforts by previous owners to develop what is now the Rezko lot, possibly as townhomes?

A: I was not aware of any prior effort by the seller to develop the property, but always understood the other lot was to be developed upon sale.

Q: Did Rezko have an appraisal performed for the 10-foot strip?

A: I had an appraisal conducted by Howard B. Richter & Associates on November 21, 2005.

Q: Was there a negotiation? Did he have an asking price, or did he just say, whatever you think is fair?

A: I proposed to pay on the basis of proportionality. Since the strip composed one-sixth of the entire lot, I would pay one-sixth of the purchase price of the lot. I offered this to Mr. Rezko and he accepted it.

Q: How many fundraisers has Mr. Rezko hosted for you? Were these all in his home? How much would you estimate he has raised for your campaigns?

A: He hosted one event at his home in 2003 for my U.S. Senate campaign. He participated as a member of a host committee for several other events. My best estimate was that he raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

[Qutzupalotl]

21. It does help. Thanks.

I hope those saying he "needs to come clean" will take the time to read this.

[stillcool]

22. I don't think they read anything.

but I love finding articles that refute their 'story'. I learn so much.

[unc70]

23. Was the gambling bill related to the one where Obama hit the wrong button?

I remember there was something strange about a couple of votes where he tried to have it both ways.


I know it has been posted many many times that the adjoining lot was sold by Rita Rezko for a higher price so it was "obviously" valued properly. But it was also reported that the lot was sold to a Rezko associate. Given the reports that the lot was appraiseed for only about half its selling price, this all raises big red flags for me and makes me ask pointed questions:

1. While it might be possible for a licensed appraisor to be off by 100% in the value of a lot, it would seem unlikely in a market that was described as slow. Since appraisors are licensed in IL, one would expect a certain level of competency.

2. Was the sale by Rita Rezko to a "Rezko associate" a hands-off transaction, or was it a sham transaction in an attempt to establish a misleading "market value"?

3. Since Obama bought the house from the doctor, who was the developer who Obama said had owned the property, the one also know by Rezko?



I have been around a lot of real-estate transactions and the Obama/Rezko story doesn't pass the smell test. It might if I had more information that clarified the questions above and similar ones. It looks like a series of transactions among related parties.

Is anyone here a Realtor in the Chicago area familiar with the markets in that neighborhood? Anyone searched the land records? We need real data to make sense of this.

BTW Do not post the debunking of the ten myths again. That actually opens up more questions than it answers. Good effort at misdirection, but not good enough.

[jillan]

17. Obama cannot just 'hope' this story will go away.

Better to deal with it now than when the gopers bring it to life.

[Cant trust em]

19. One in a series of campaign blunders

between this and the "snub" there have been a couple of goofball mistakes that have required him to spend time off message. These are all pretty minor things, but it's these little missteps that can cost people elections. If there's really nothing to the Rezko story then he should inundate the press with answers. They'd realize that there was no story and move on.