Experience, and Experiences (of the Rezko sort) [UPDATED]
By NoQuarter on February 26, 2008 at 9:42 AM in Barack Obama, Chicago politics, Nadhmi Auchi, Patrick Fitzgerald, Tony Rezko
UPDATE: Jeralyn at TalkLeft writes up the Rezko trial (and she is going to cover it, which is terrific since she is an attorney and has covered trials for the ‘net many times - subscribe to their RSS feed): “Rezko Trial Set to Begin: Implications for Barack Obama.” Jeralyn covers some of what I have below, and also reviews a NY Sun article that is substantive, saying “as the Post points out, while the Rezko trial is occurring too late to help Hillary Clinton, it may be good fodder for John McCain.”
(original) “Experience”: Via Taylor Marsh, Obama questioning his own experience to run for president when asked in 2004:
Experiences (he’s had a few): The Chicago Tribune reports that “Obama’s name likely to come up at Rezko trial” (prosecuted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald):
The name of Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama is likely to brush up against the impending federal corruption trial of Antoin “Tony” Rezko as the result of a judge’s ruling Monday.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve, who is presiding over Rezko’s trial, told prosecutors they could introduce evidence to support allegations that Rezko used straw men to make political contributions on his behalf.
Prosecutors have alleged that the money came from fees Rezko illegally siphoned from a state pension board. [Someone I know is researching the "coincidence" that during the three-plus months that Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama was appointed to the senate's pension committee -- just three months -- the senate prevented the consolidation of state pensions, which would have adversely affected Rezko's pensions schemes, that bilked millions from the state pensions. The bald facts are there, but my friend is still digging for details. - SusanUnPC]
There are new developments regarding the Obamas’ home purchase, a sweetheart of a deal, that directly involved Tony Rezko, who was already under intense federal investigation, and Rezko’s wife. As you’ll see below, several newspapers are reporting Tony Rezko tried to get a state appointment for the real estate agent who did the home sale/purchase, and that an Iraqi/British billionaire involved with Rezko “lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender.” (By the way, City Nell’s original article on February 4 here at NoQuarter — “How to Buy a Mansion You Can’t Afford” — broke new ground on the story, and has been quoted widely across the ‘net.)
“Obama as a State Senator: Does He ‘Deserve a Promotion?’,” the companion article to last night’s ABC Nightline provides some background:
Obama has been repeatedly attacked by the Clinton campaign for his ties to indicted political fundraiser Tony Rezko.
In 2005, Obama purchased a house for $300,000 less than its owners were asking, and Rezko simultaneously bought the adjacent lot from the same seller at full price ($625,000). Obama, who paid $1,650,000 for the home, has said that the price had been lowered because the home had been on the market for some time and that the price on the adjacent property did not move because there was a separate offer on the vacant lot for full price.
While Obama admitted involving Rezko in the purchase was a “bone-headed” mistake because Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office at the time, Obama has said that he “was confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.”
McKinney said Rezko could come back to haunt Obama.
“It’s problematic now because Obama day after day is now having to answer Rezko questions, now under indictment, facing trial during this election cycle,” McKinney said, adding that any revelations during the trial would be “at best politically awkward for the senator.”
Some new revelations appear to indicate Obama had involved Rezko at an earlier stage of his home buying than was previously known. The Obama campaign revealed last week to Bloomberg News that while Rezko was under federal investigation, Obama and Rezko toured the home and property together before submitting bids to the seller.
While McKinney considered Obama as a “pretty clean legislator” not unduly influenced by lobbyists, the campaign’s handling of the Rezko matter makes him take a second glance. Identifying and returning or donating all the contributions associated with Rezko has proved a lengthy process, and when questioned by reporters in January, the campaign pointed to Obama’s on-the-record statements that he didn’t recall specific conversations with Rezko and was “not clear” how Rezko became involved in the purchase of the property.
“I don’t understand why there wasn’t clarity initially on those kinds of questions,” …
From the Times UK:
Mansion ‘mistake’ piles the pressure on Barack Obama
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.
Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.
Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.
Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.
Mrs Rezko’s purchase and sale of the land to Mr Obama raises many unanswered questions.
It is unclear how Mrs Rezko could have afforded the downpayment of $125,000 and a $500,000 mortgage for the original $625,000 purchase of the garden plot at 5050 South Greenwood Ave.
In a sworn statement a year later, Mrs Rezko said she got by on a salary of $37,000 and had $35,000 assets. Mr Rezko told a court he had “no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets, no unencumbered assets [and] is significantly in arrears on many of his obligations.” …
READ ALL of the three-page article.
Then there was Rezko’s intervention for the real estate agent who handled the Obamas’ home purchase:
Rezko sought post for Obama’s home-seller
CHICAGO (UPI) — Indicted Illinois fundraiser Tony Rezko once sought a state post for the agent who sold a home to presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, court records showed.
Court papers filed in Rezko’s corruption case indicated he asked Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration to appoint Donna Schwan Jackson, a real estate agent, to the Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Friday.
Jackson is included in a list of people Rezko and others tried to get appointed to state boards and commissions, Blagojevich administration records obtained by federal prosecutors showed. Jackson didn’t get the appointment. …
City Nell — in “How to Buy a Mansion You Can’t Afford” — also points out how Michelle Obama used her position on a preservation board to get the stately old home that the Obamas purchased under those iffy circumstances.
Questions? I have a few. More than a few.
Hey! Why doesn’t someone interview the sellers of the home to find out what happened?
Wait. . . they DID!!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_9sOMpy91Js&refer=us
“The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator’s $1.65 million bid “was the best offer” and they didn’t cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama’s presidential campaign and the seller. ”
“The Obamas submitted three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15, 2005; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23, according to a copy of the sale contract shown to Bloomberg News. Obama received more than $1.2 million in book royalties and a book advance in 2005, the year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate, his financial disclosure statement shows.”
Now, if you think this is a ’scandal’- maybe you should check out some of the Clinton’s donars!
Like this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?bl&ex=1201928400&en=34871ee7da314ab4&ei=5087%0A
Which fetched the Clintons more that $130 million dollars in donations! But, what could go wrong with helping to sell uranium mines to questionable characters in Kazakhstan?
I think any ’scandal’ involving Obama is going to pale compared to what the CLintons have in their closet!
OOPS! The Obama campaign interviewed the sellers and that info was passed, filtered, to the media.
We’ll see. . .
It’s ironic to see people who (I presume) thought Whitewater was a waste of time & resources (as did I) pursue Obama with the same assumption that he’s guilty of something nefarious. Further proof that the Clintons are resorting to the Republican playbook they claimed to despise!
“We’ll see”?
The followers need a reading comprehension / remedial course. Badly.
(Not to mention an open, rational, questioning mind. Generation NEXT is going to ruin this country with its “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for and don’t you dare tell ME ME ME otherwise!”)
No free passes, dear. This is a race to live in the White House and to lead the world. You betcha O-Bomba will be screened through the finest sieve money can buy!
Our country and it’s citizens lives depends on it.
Hillary passed the vetting. Now it’s O-Bomba’s turn.
The greater point, in the end, is to get rid of the corruption, best for the country, right? I mean, THAT curroption, as evidenced by Auchi, could point ot WHY we’re in Iraq, right now.
Do you have a problem with it?
But thank you for the links, I will check them out.
Of course, it’s the new york times, and they really don’t have credibility , anymore, given the false narrative they built around Obama, and such.
The Obamas submitted three bids
Senator Obama has been evasive even on this point.
His public statements contradict this “fact”.
Michelle Obamas position was used to contact and pressure the seller. Senator Obama has stated he went to Rezko with the deal. If the seller does not want to issue a statement it is based on the advise of counsel and a request from Fiztgeralds’ office.
Does a skunk have a stripe?
If the Senator is metioned in the indictment of Rezko, you can’t rest assured he gave a deposition and when that deposition is shown to have false statements, which it will, the fan will have something hit it.
The comparitive arguement regarding a donation to MR Clinton’s foundation is NOT about Senator Clinton.
Why are you guys still in the bushes about the Rezko property deal?
It is real simple.
Obama could not afford the house and lot. The sellers want to sell both properties together. The wife of his political benefactor (who at the time was under federal investigation for political fraud and general wrongdoing) for over 15 years stepped up to help.
Now what the sellers said are did say is immaterial. The only material statement that can be offered by the sellers is the amount of money paid for their property to which Obama already said he could not afford both properties.
Is there an issue there? Maybe, maybe not.
Actually, scuttle is Obama took the money from a known terrorist supporter, one with links back to Bush, and the republicans.
Which is a big deal.
And you find money laundering simple, at firsst glance?
Wow.
You are not doing this country any favors by saying he is not as bad as someone else, so he is good! What he did was not above board and more unfiltered information will be coming.
The problem is… HIS ACTIONS CONFLICT WITH THE THEME OF HIS RHETORIC! As it always does!
He raised the bar high for NEW FRESH CHANGE HOPE NEW kind of politics….no lobbyists…..YET…he is just the same as everyone else….yet worse because he using his rhetoric to effectively spin the American People….he is running because he knew the Americans would fall for his rhetoric…..and apparently….so far many have.
he is a product of marketing and the Obama supporters have been bought and we will all be sold and sunk by Obama.
I jump ship of the democrats.
he hasn’t spun me.
And why haven’t the Clintons released their tax returns? Obama has, so that we know there will be no surprises during the GE. . .
What ARE the Clintons hiding? Could it be that there are MORE of these questionable dealings?
Are they directly connected to a terrorist supporting, money laundering individual?
The Clinton’s may not be perfect, but Obama’s narcissism pushed him into entering a presidential race he wasn’t ready for, this would be exposed, (I can’t imagine what those people were thinking, they’re not the Bush family,) sorry, from what I’ve seen, as of now, the Clinton’s are just not as dirty.
Hit a nerve, didn’t it?
No way out.
>>Obama’s narcissism pushed him into entering a presidential race he wasn’t ready for
Huh? He’s CLOBBERING her, and she was the presumptive nominee. She was so arrogant and short-sighted that she didn’t plan past SUPER-TUESDAY!
Not only that, but she’s demonstrated that she doesn’t have the judgement nor the temperament to be President. He has simply outclassed her.
She should have left the race with her dignity intact.
Hillary has more class on her pinky than O-Bomba. Any woman that high in public office, without the scandals of sleeping around Washington to get there, has VERY much has more class.
And before you go off about her husband sleeping around, ask O-Bomba’s wife how she got where she is today (especially her pay raise).
BTW, Clintons don’t quit. They’re like our Winston Churchill. In this day and age, I sure want an ol’ Churchill around, than a Chamberlin, preaching, “Peace in our time.”
If you’re this stupid, you don’t belong here.
Nice try, though.
Shithead.
Btw Neb?
The republicans hire em stupid, too.
Ever think of trying there, for a job?
She provides full financial disclosure every year to the Senate Ethics Committee. Every year.
She can do the income tax returns when she is the nominee.
But, let’s see how Barack and Michelle explain away that Michelle used her preservation board membership to nab that historic home and Barack used his crook of a pal and longtime financial backer to buy the home they couldn’t afford.
>>But, let’s see how Barack and Michelle explain away that Michelle used her preservation board membership to nab that historic home and Barack used his crook of a pal and longtime financial backer to buy the home they couldn’t afford.
Where’s your evidence? You sound like the wingnuts who accused Hillary of everything from making $100,000 on Cattle futures, to killing Vince Foster, to Whitewater, etc, etc. . .
Your desperation is apparent.
READING COMPREHENSION! It is a good thing.
(Check out City Nell’s story linked twice in my article above.)
Google is your friend, or do you plan to play the disingenuos no talent, forever?
Work it, Neb, work it…
One more thing. . .
I prefer to talk about the ISSUES, rather than engage in character assassination.
Obama opposed the Iraq War, she supported it and voted identically to McCain. She supported Kyl-Lieberman, he did not. She introduced a bill banning flag-burning (WTF?!?!?), she opposed banning cluster bombs (he voted to ban them). She argues for ‘exceptions for torture’ which both Obama and McCain opposed. She takes money from lobbyists, he does not. She has LOADS of baggage and is VERY divisive. He inspires Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans.
In short, she will LOSE to McCain. . . while Obama will CLOBBER McCain. Not to mention his coattails will be MUCH longer than hers! She would be opposed and filibustered every step (if she eeked out a win in the GE) Republicans would be so afraid of losing MORE SEATS in 2010 (and also looking like racists) that they would not be able to filibuster Obama’s agenda.
And, truth be told. . . they are very similar on the issues I didn’t mention. The most important thing to me is winning the GE and getting out agenda through. He has the best chance.
Obama will clobber McCain? Offering proof or just “hoping?”
Well he doesn’t seem to “inspire” some of us or we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?
As for those pesky Republicans, like the ones that voted for him here in Wisconsin, read their comments from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. http://www.jsonline.com/content/forum/primary.asp
Reading some of those comments, one might almost come to believe that those ethically challenged Republican type folks gamed our system. And chanting “The Republicans Will Get Ya If You Don’t Vote Democratic” is the same swill I’ve been hearing since I cast my first vote in 1968. God grief, they even terrified me into voting for McGovern and Dukakis.
Still, if your pal Obama, who inspires you and revolts me, does make it to the general, I will and so will many of my friends, be voting Green.
>>Obama will clobber McCain? Offering proof or just “hoping?”
Well, I know at least five ‘Obamacans’ and none of them would vote for Hillary (they prefer McCain, as does my Democratic Sister-in Law).
Every poll shows him stronger against McCain in the GE.
He’s doubling her fundraising (and from small donors, not lobbyists like her).
He’s drawing 20,000 people at his rallies, she is pissing off once-loyal supporters.
If Hillary can’t beat Obama on ‘Experience’, she certainly can’t beat McCain.
Need more?
>>Well he doesn’t seem to “inspire” some of us or we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?
I don’t understand the hatred. From the comments on this blog, though, I fear that it’s the same racist, anti-Muslim sentiments exhibited by the GOP.
What, after all, do you dislike about his positions? He has also behaved in a civilized and dignified manner, while she has not.
>>Reading some of those comments, one might almost come to believe that those ethically challenged Republican type folks gamed our system.
Who cares what a small minority of voters are doing? Rush Limabaugh encouraged HIS listeners to vote Clinton because he thinks she’s easier to beat. . . So What? I’m not basing my decision on what Rush Limbaugh says!
>>Still, if your pal Obama, who inspires you and revolts me, does make it to the general, I will and so will many of my friends, be voting Green.
Go ahead. I used to think that we had two great candidates, but after her last outburst and her attempts to undermine the system there is NO WAY I can vote for her. Truth be told, I trust McCain more than her (and that’s saying something!)
At this point, the ONLY WAY she can get the nomination is by getting the Superdelegates to ignore the will of the people, or to break her promise that “FL and MI don’t count”!
I said:
To which you responded:
So because he doesn’t inspire me I am a racist and anti-Muslim? My statement shows hatred? Guess that means that I hate everyone that doen’t inspire me. Seems a little silly to even say something that lame.
But then your instant jump to calling people racists and anti-Muslim is just a part of what passes for civil discourse amongst the Obamatrons.
Part of what I dislike so much about Obama is the sheer nastiness of his supporters. Thank you for making my case for me.
Ditto on the Green ticket. Pure Dem since 1972. No more since I’m now a proud Independent and no longer wed to a loosing political party - except for the Clintons. Too bad the Dems won in 1992. I’m sure life would have been so much better without the Clintons around - no NAFTA, universal health care, gay marriage, abortion rights expanded, liberal supreme court justices and the list could go on and on except for those damn Clintons.
With ya all the way grandmother. I became an Independent about a dozen Democratic sellouts ago.
Since Mr. Hopeful and his followers think they can “work” with the same thugs that have outsmarted them both as a Minority and a Majority, an Obama Administration promises to be an even bigger sellout than what has gone before.
In short, she will LOSE to McCain. . . while Obama will CLOBBER McCain.
Ned,
Correct. The NYT reported that polls predict that Obama will beat McCain.
McCain knows it too. This is why he’s backing off his 100 year war claim and admitted that he could lose the election because of Iraq.
Plus, McCain now has a lobbyist problem that includes Abramhoff.
Those polls are utterly hypothetical at this point. I never give them any credence. Anyone experienced in observing presidential general elections knows that anything and everything can happen, or change.
’sides, the “hope” baloney will get old in due time.
Yeah, any day now people will wake up and start voting for Hillary in DROVES! She’ll win TX, OH, VT, PA in a 80/20% landslide and go on to be the nominee!!!
The ‘hope’ baloney will get old and her ‘experienced solutions ready on day one’ mantra will defeat the. . .ummm. . . inexperience, not ready on day one McCain?!?!?
And WHO is demonstrating unrealistic, “the sky will open to angelic choirs” thinking?
Man, I cannot believe how naive you guys are about McCain.
His remarks about losing because of Iraq, and then taking them back, look planned to me.
McCain says his success depends on how the surge does. Gosh, do you think he will say the surge is a failure??? ROFLMAOAPMP!!
He’s going to say it’s a success, and the faux lapse in confidence you mention will give him extra credibility.
You guys are such rubes!!
Ned wrote:
———————————————-
“I prefer to talk about the ISSUES, rather than engage in character assassination.”
———————————————-
What you’re doing here IS trying to assassinate the character of Hillary — and you’re doing a very poor job at it.
Sorry, but those are the ISSUES that matter to me. Bringing up her voting record is NOT ‘character assassination’!
We’ve discussed the issues ad nauseum here.
You’re just whining because this Rezko story is bugging you. You cannot admit it here. But in your heart of hearts, you know it.
Your guy is all about the green. And winning. He’s found the smooth path aided by a nice voice. It’s such an act. Someday you’ll learn. It’s gonna hurt.
You got me. You allege that Obama cut a ’sweet’ land deal and saved a whopping $300,000!
The Clintons have received $131 MILLION dollars from Kazakhstan Uranium Mining deals, Millions from Marc Rich (for which he got a pardon), and there’s MUCH more.
Boy am I afraid of the Rezko issue! It REALLY has hurt him so far, hasn’t it? Sort of like ‘Travelgate’, “Whitewatergate’, ‘Filegate’, and the millions of other STUPID manufactured scandals against the CLintons in the 90’s!
The only thing people around here seem to care about is that she’s a woman! Now, I liked that Elizabeth Dole was running for President, but I would NEVER vote for her! I also like that Hillary is a woman, but I DON’T LIKE her DLC voting record! If she were a man, she would have been my LAST CHOICE of the Democratic contenders. But she was #3 for me (Edwards, Obama, Clinton)
Her recent ‘off-the-rails’ behavior, though, has convinced me that she’s NOT Presidential material!
No, Neb, the issue is the money laundering, and illegal arms trade, why Valerie Plame was outed, nudge nudge.
And that isn’t going away, no matter HOW you spin.
Really, see the real target, for once.
Gosh, I woke up for this?
Neb?
Jeez…
Obama’s been charged with Money Laundering and illegal arms trading?
Please provide a link for me (from a credible source, none of these ‘Hillary killed Vince Foster’ web sites)
I’m SHOCKED that the press has covered this up. . .
And I suppose you believe the guy who claims to have done cocaine with Obama and given him a BJ, too?
Mark Twain has written a book about you Ned. The issues you wish to discuss are about the effects of the kool-aid logic that feeds you emotions.
If she were a man, she would have been my LAST CHOICE of the Democratic contenders
And gender is a factor that you consider in your decision? “off the Rails” ??? Oh I get it. You are threatened by assertive “scary” intelligent women.
>>And gender is a factor that you consider in your decision? “off the Rails” ??? Oh I get it. You are threatened by assertive “scary” intelligent women.
What’s wrong with wanting to see more women in public office?
No, I am not threatened by assertive, intelligent women. But her scornful mockery of someone she just claimed to be “honored” to share the stage with with unpresidential, off-the-rails behavior!
Can you imagine a President Hillary Clinton mocking her foreign and domestic political adversaries in the same manner? If this is how she treats those she’s ‘honored’ to be with, how can I expect her to be dignified towards those she DOESN’T agree with?
You ARE a liar!
Oh, that’s nothing, you should hear what the real men say about Obama when no one is around, my goodness, you would just throw up.
The issue is Obama’s corruption, and terrorist attacks.
Miss it?
“She supported Kyl-Lieberman, he did not.”
That’s because he ducked the vote.
Hey, Ned, yes why doesn’t someone interview the sellers instead of blindly accepting the Obama campaign version of an e-mail exchange with those people. Your post misleadingly suggests that has happened. Nope.
An exculpatory e-mail exchange the campaign refuses to disclose…sellers it won’t urge to come forward…repeated protests that all the questions have been answered and then all sorts of new facts emerge. (He toured the place with a guy everybody in Illinois was under active federal investigation?)
Maybe there really is no “there” there in the Rezko deal but the Obama campaign has surely given no one any substantial assurances that’s the case.
Nice try on the “hey, look at the Clintons instead!” gambit, but no cigar. When do you folks suggest we hear the whole back story on the Tale of Tony? October?
There you go. That “revelation” was entirely managed by the Obama campaign. It is laughable the media promoted it.
I disagree Susan, not laughable. In my view, maddening and ultimately very possibly tragic.
You are correct, sir. Sigh.
Sometimes, though, the “masterminds” are so incompetent, they make a Benny Hill farce look like an exercise in Shakespearean tragedy.
If they only knew who Shakespeare, or Benny Hill was…
Ned stop trying to change the subject. She did it too is not going to work with Fitzgerald. I have been looking at this very questionable deal since I became aware of it, and my questions keep growing. Everyone in Chicago is going to be covering on this because he is their guy. There is nothing wrong with this. I never take the word of a real estate agent. Ever. I get backup. These folks are going to do what they think is needed for this story to go away, but it will not because to many such as myself who have extensive backgrounds in buying and selling real property know this stinks. Is it is illegal? There is not enough info out to know. Is it unethical? Yes it is. The house was low balled and the lot was for full asking. This is a brand new US senator who should not have touched this with a ten foot pole.
But Clinton is connected to men who are corrupt, Obama IS corrupt, that is the difference.
What they accuse Clitnon is doing is tangential, and should be discussed.
Obama, though, IS corrupt, having Auchi pay for his house, knowingly, or, say, for example, having Rezko make deposits for him, or the IL gov., in an bank account, overseas, one that cannot be traced.
And now the tax return stuff?? Hillary has said she’ll do so if she’s the nominee. An obviously reasonable approach.
But when do we get to see Sen. Obama’s state senate papers? You know, the ones the dog ate, or that are in the basement, or…..
So there.
I, for one, would like to know if she’s hiding anything BEFORE we get to the GE!
Fortunately, she and her horrible campaign manager are apparently determined to make sure that she’s NOT the nominee. . . so we won’t have to worry about that. Do you REALLY want the White House run by focus-group Mark Penn again? She should have fired him LONG AGO!!!
As for Rezko, there’s no reason to believe that there’s anything there. Granted, Obama was unscrupulous in touring the property with Rezko- but this is as substantive as Hillary’s unscrupulous Cattle Futures, or Whitewater, or Travelgate, or, etc, etc. . . The house was on the market for a long time and the highest bid the sellers received was from Obama (after they rejected his two lower bids). It’s not uncommon for sellers to lower their price in such a situation. If you have evidence that there were higher bids, please provide it.
Shouldn’t you wait for evidence that Obama committed a crime before painting him as guilty?
“As for Rezko, there’s no reason to believe that there’s anything there.”
Why there is no reason? A month ago, we didn’t even know Hussein toured the house with Rezko. Who knows if there any anything more. Shouldn’t we know more about the candidate? especially since he is projecting this ‘clean’ image, unlike the dirty old Clintons.
>>A month ago, we didn’t even know Hussein toured the house with Rezko.
Aha! But we also didn’t know that Rezko was a donor to the Clinton in the 90s and had his photo taken with them!
But, again, it seems the REAL reason you oppose ‘Hussein Osama’ is because he’s (gasp) black and a Muslim! WTF? You remind me of the wingnut blogs making fun of ‘Hussein’ and ‘Hitlery Clinton’!
And Obama and Bush share a same backer, T.Othman, who is strangely enough, connected to a man who launders money for Osama.
Will wonders never cease, my goodness!
And someone emailed me, yesterday, saying “wait, it gets better!”
Oh good, nothing I love better than a bunch of crooked, stupid American politicians messing with terrorists, making a decision to send the US army out, to protect their scaredy asses, while they try to get rich…
Supposition, of course…
WOW! Sounds like that must have come from a CREDIBLE news source! Please provide the link so that I can check it out!
Do you fucking have google?
Shithead.
You have no capacity for critical thought, at all, do you?
Find a fucking newspaper, moron.
Start with the UK Times, and the Chicago Sun Times, and Tribune.
Then try the Chicagoist, and fucking read, you illiterate moron.
No wonder republicans can’t win for shit.
You know, men as stupid as you run the war.
When in crisis, pretend PR can handle it, and let others use your delsuoins to troll you.
YOU do it, YOU find the sources, they are there, and come back, and talk.
Sen. Obama doesn’t refer to himself by his middle name. Neither should you.
Suffice to say that Obama needs to further elaborate on what exactly occurred in the transaction. I don’t see where any laws were broken, but let’s face it — Tony Rezko was no casual acquaintance, as the senator initially implied — “some guy I knew”, “this individual”, etc. — when initial scrutiny was given to the relationship.
If he was, well, we should all have such generous casual acquaintances, who can drop six figures on a turn to facilitate our real estate purchases.
The house was on the market for a long time
Do your homework Ned.
I wonder why? mmmm in that part of town?
The president broke the law, so if he can no big deal if I do. eh?
Please enlighten me! Why was the house on the market for so long and received no bid higher than the Obamas? Have the Obamas been charged with doing anything wrong? I’ve read all the Rezko articles and there’s no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama.
Should we hold the Clintons responsible for all their donors? If so, I can provide a list of some of the questionable characters who have donated to them (and some received pardons and other political favors!)
This is why there is such an interest in Obama, and Auchi.
And this is why Rezko’s trial is so important.
Are you familiar with journalism?
Good journalism is fair minded, and it gets to the truth.
It’s hard work though, and lacking critical thought, you might have problems with it.
You don’t spin well, and a xerox of your adversaries position isn’t enough.
Again, goes back to that pesky notion of “critical reasoning” which Bush and Obama supporters, PR persons and trolls seem to lack.
And it explains everything.
Ah, the culture of the no talent narcissistic elite, their sycophants and wannabes.
It’s a red elephant, Neb…
Scary thing is though, when people who think, and game, like you run a war.
For America.
Yikes!
You have provided no evidence of any wrongdoing on Obama’s part.
If guilt by donor is a crime, look at the Clintons list: Marc Rich, Hsu, Scruggs, Samuel Rivera, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, and there are MANY MORE!
Hey, Rezko should be prosecuted. . .but there’s no evidence that Obama has done anything wrong. Your accusations just are not backed up by the facts.
If enlightenment is what you seek Grasshopper;
read.
The difference is that Hillary Clinton has been “vetted” to the tune of 70 million dollars and Obama has not.
For over 20+ years, the Clinton’s have been under a microscope and are still successful. And please don’t tell me that it is because the political establishment is pulling for them. As you can see by both the press coverage they have received over the years, and the animosity of “old guard” politicians upset that the Clinton’s were able to navigate the shark-infested waters without their assistance, speaks volumes.
I find it interesting that “so-called” progressives have become so adept at parroting right wing talking points. You must get them from over at the Huffington Post. Here is alittle info on dear old Arianna.
1. She was the girlfriend of then Democratic California, Jerry Brown. When old Jerry didn’t put a ring on her finger she married.
2. Michael Huffington. Who spent millions to run for a House seat and after 2 years attempted, unsuccessfully, to route Barbara Boxer from her Senate seat.
3. Ariana was telling the world in 1996 how much better the world would be if the country did not re-elect Bill Clinton but rather Bob Dole. (Go back to the old Politically Incorrect…to see her arguments with Al Franken).
4. In 2000 she spread the untruth that Al Gore had claimed to invent the internet. (Which is not what he said…)
5. Now she wants me to believe that she is “fearless” and a true progressive when she is nothing more than a political opportunist.
6. She wrote (2) biographies (Pablo Picasso and Maria Callas) and settled several plagarism cases out of court over her use of large areas of material from other historians without proper citation.
I did not know that, I thought the Picasso book was supposed to offer a unique take, calling Picasso out on his misogyny.
I read Norman Mailer’s biography of Picasso, but I didn’t like it. His work after “The Executioner’s Song” didn’t really do it, for me.
At the time I was reading, though, I thought “The Executioner’s Song” was the best book, technically perfect, I had ever read. Mailer was in the heads of those characters, he read them perfectly, understanding their true feelings, and therefore, motivations, IMO.
I’ll have to go back and see if I still think, that, though.
Thanks for the heads up about Huffington, I’ll remember the plagiarism if I ever come across her biography of Picasso.
What is it with the Obama/republican crowd and plagiarism?
No critical or original thought, a result of narcissistic personality disorder, the inability to succeed in the jobs they undertake, because they are woefully unqualified, and stupid, and cannot properly, or accurately, assess the conditions which they face.
Right neb?
Whether it’s a biography on Picasso, or a war with Iraq, or Hillary Clinton’s stolen economic plan.
>>What is it with the Obama/republican crowd and plagiarism?
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That ‘plagarism’ charge is REALLY working for Hillary!
It’s somewhat ironic that SHE lifted (plagarized, as you call it) at least TWO different things during that last debate (one from her husband, one from John Edwards). She also has lifted the message of ‘change’ from Obama- after initially deciding to run as the establishment candidate.
Funny too that she says that ‘actions speak louder than words’! I thought that politics, policies, laws, etc were constructed of WORDS!
To bad she will never be President, since it would have been fun to see the first SOTU ‘interpretive dance’!
I may be drinking Obama’s koolaid, but it’s clear that you’ve been drinking Bill Clinton’s milkshake (ewwwwww!!!)
Keep up the good work, Susan!
Agreed, excellent summary, Susan.
And don’t forget rezkowatch.blogspot, great reporting there, too.
Thank you…
Oh yeah! Great work, Susan!
I’m anxiously waiting for more ‘fake’ prank phone calls between Karl Rove and Obama! Anytime you can work in racism, a ‘dick’ joke, etc- that’s CLASSY, just like your candidate!
I think ’sarcastic’ Clinton should show up to the debate tonight. We’ve seen ‘fake-smiling Hillary’ with her gushing “I’m honored” BS. We’ve seen ‘fake-outrage’ Hillary “shame on you, Obama!”.
But, it sure is Presidential to treat your political allies (and the millions of people who voted for him) with dripping sarcasm and contempt! That’s certainly the way to make friends and influence people!
You sound like a petulant whiny child, bashing the woman who won’t date your stupid, ugly, wannabe ass.
And could you blame her?
Now, neb, one more time, this time with feelng…
Nice, pal.
Look, I don’t care whose ’stupid, ugly, wannabe ass’ Hillary wants to date!
I do, however, care that we have a dignified, honest, trustworthy, even-tempered President.
Clearly, this is something she is not.
Certainly not a bitchy little mama’s boy, who can’t write, or troll.
Shit, you republicans/Obamabots are morons, too stupid to see the truth.
.
Something of course, Nadhmi Auchi will gladly pay for, to both troll, and run as President.
(That was sarcastic, I realize it goes over the head, sometimes…)
Shithead.
Again, Neb, one more time, this time with feeling…
Or skill.
One more thing, pal. . .
I don’t know why I’m wasting time here with people who are only interested in bashing Obama for all sorts of unfounded reasons (money laundering connections with Al Qaeda? PLEASE!)
The fact is- Hillary will NOT be the nominee. She will NOT be the President. I know that disappoints everyone here, but she has done herself in during the course of this campaign.
Now, Obama and Hillary share 95% of the same platform and I’ve no doubt that they will work together when he’s the President. I think it’s time to stop giving ammo to the GOP for Novemmber. She still may be able to be integral to the Obama administration, but she has got to start acting in a dignified manner again.
And I would also like to see her supporters start acting in a dignified, respectful way. The ’scorched earth policies’ have got to stop- it is paramount that we end the Bush policies and start moving the country forward.
But it’s time for the Clinton supporters to face the facts- her chances are slim to none unless Obama screws it up for himself. So it does no good to attack him viciously and, in fact, it backfires and reflects negatively on Hillary and her supporters.
Don’t you understand Simon? If Hillary Clinton has more than one emotion, or one reaction or one facial expression it’s cause she’s a phony. With logic like that, you can see why this person is an Obama supporter.
One who finds it necessary to hang out on one of the few blogs that actually is pro-Hillary instead of at one of the many rabid pro-Obama blogs where trashing Hillary is their favorite indoor sport. Perhaps not good enough for the big-time Hillary-Hating sites and thus must throw periodic little tantrums where there is little competition.
>>If Hillary Clinton has more than one emotion, or one reaction or one facial expression it’s cause she’s a phony.
Nice! But I’ve already explained that scornful sarcasm is NOT presidential. If that’s how she treats her political allies (whom she’s ‘honored’ to share the stage with), how would she treat her opponents??? You think she’ll get her agenda through behaving like that (”Oh, if Boehner’s bill gets passed the world will sing in beautiful harmony, if it doesn’t then we’ll all die in a fiery explosion!!!”)
In my opinion, a President should not lose his/her cool. S/he should be able to calmly and reasonably tackle the issues without getting worked up. Above all, a president should be respectful.
I wish you guys could defend your candidate rather than just attacking Obama and his supporters. But that would require a discussion on the issues and. . . what? It’s more fun to attack, attack, attack?