As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama

[TacticalPeek]

Source: NYT

March 2, 2008

As Developer Heads to Trial, Questions Linger Over a Deal With Obama

By MIKE McINTIRE and CHRISTOPHER DREW

Tony Rezko was obviously in trouble. He was a defendant in at least a dozen lawsuits, federal investigators in Chicago were poking around, and his name was in newspaper articles about corruption and fraud.

None of that stopped Mr. Rezko, a politically connected developer, and Senator Barack Obama from completing real estate deals a few years ago that resulted in the Obamas obtaining their dream house and the Rezkos buying an empty lot next door.

...

But a review of court records, including new details of Mr. Rezko’s finances that emerged recently, show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

As Mr. Obama and Mr. Rezko were completing the property purchases in June 2005, Mr. Rezko was fighting to keep lenders and investors at bay over defaulted loans and failing business ventures. But he side-stepped that financial dragnet by arranging for the land to be bought in his wife’s name, making it the only property she owned by herself, according to land records.





Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

---

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. been "Whitewater" rafting lately?

With the Clintons, there will be endless investigations new and old.

They are an endless supply.

The media is deliberately holding back, saving it for later they hope.

ITs great for ratings to have these investigations going on 365 days a year.

[libbygurl]

20. Remember the tens of millions of taxpayer money spent in trying to pin something, anything...

... on the Clintons then? You think the rightwingnuts would have let it rest if they didn't find anything?

So, did they find anything untoward with all that waste of money?

All rightwingnut lies you insinuate here. This is Democratic Underground, as far as I can tell. Go back to Freeperland if you want to unearth those old, worn, baseless accusations again.

[Rageneau]

10. Only wingnuts post the wingnut trash you posted here. There are NO Clinton scandals, just lies.

The Clintons have never done a single illegal or unethical thing in all their long public lives. If they had, it would certainly have been discovered during the eight-year, 150 million dollar-plus witch hunt that examined every single aspect of their financial lives -- including every check they ever wrote!!!

That blatherskite list of supposed Clinton scandals of yours is nothing but nasty wingnuttery -- a rehash of one completely debunked charge after another. There is not a single credible accusation in the whole thing.

But Obama is a different deal altogether. Already -- in just the Rezko house deal alone -- Obama has been shown to be corrupt and unethical to some undeniable degree. No way that whole deal was legit and no way a smart guy like him didn't know it.

In eight years, all the prosecutorial and journalistic resources this country has could not find anything one-tenth as incriminating about the Clintons as we already KNOW about Obama.

And the 'vetting' ain't even started yet. By the time November comes, his reputation will be in tatters.

[aaroh]

13. Have you been sleeping under a rock?

ummm....helllooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....cattles futures, watergate, travelgate, whitewater shall I go on and on and on and on

[Recursion]

16. Wow

The Clintons have never done a single illegal or unethical thing in all their long public lives.

:spray:

And Obama supporters are called a "cult"...

[pathansen]

26. Whitewater only involved alleged $300,000 and Clintons were cleared of all charges

The Repubs went after them for several years on this only to find no basis for it.

[unc70]

3. Rezko increasingly discussed as trial begins -- harder for Obama to dodge

With the WSJ, NYT, and even a little WaPo joining the Chicago and UK papers in actually covering these questions.

Now that this topic has been blessed by the NYT, I expect it to be on the Sunday morning shows.

[kelligesq]

4. strangest thing -

where are all the vitriolic 0 100 supporters - funny they're not commenting on
this - and trashing the thread as usual

[unc70]

5. Maybe they are watching Clinton on SNL. Or the animated Obama

While this NYT article is not the most detailed on the subject, it is clearer than many of the Chicago or other coverage, such as that from the UK. I have been following the Rezko stuff fairly closely, but I am overwhelmed with many of the articles in Chicago media because I am unfamiliar with most of the state and local politicians, developers, lobbyists, or specific issues and legislation. I can barely keep up with my own state (NC) and its problems.

[CatnHat]

7. K&R

[flor de jasmim]

8. Hasn't this already been debunked by the seller??

[Rageneau]

11. The only thing 'debunked' by the seller is that Obama got a special price.

Everything else about the deal stinks. A bankrupt Rezko purchases an empty lot he has no need for on the same day that it HAD to be purchased in order for Obama to buy the adjoining dream house. And Rezko purchases this property in his wife's (who has no assets) name -- why? And then he sells just enough of this empty lot back to Obama so that BO can have a yard which he couldn't otherwise have afforded.

It was a special business deal in which Rezko lost, Rezko's creditors lost, Mrs. Rezko lost and Barack Obama won big.

Shades of George W. Bush.

[aquart]

30. Bought a lot he didn't need for twice its market value.

And then sold it...TO HIS LAWYER.

Funnily enough, Barack got his house with $300,000 knocked off, and Mrs. Rezko overpaid for that lot by $382,000. I could buy that the lot was overpriced by $82,000....but THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO THOUSAND? Most experienced developers would consider that a bad deal.

[Demagitator]

9. Kick

[silentchurch]

12. B.O. Walks on water

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRlFmhQhFU

[aaroh]

14. Hillary has a bigger lawsuit to answer to.

There's currently a lawsuit in the supreme court: Peter Paul Vs The Clintons and The republicans are helping out Peter Paul with the legal work this time round, so good luck Hillary!

[silentchurch]

15. wut drugz ru on!

Paul pled guilty to federal conspiracy charges. When his home was raided by the police in connection with this crime, they found cocaine in his garage, and Paul also pled guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.<2> He was sentenced to eight years in prison for the cocaine charge, and a concurrent three years for fraud; he was paroled after three years. His license to practice law was suspended as a result of the convictions,<6><7> and he claims to have been sued by the Cuban government as well.<4>

In 1983, Paul was caught traveling to Canada using the identity of a dead man;<8> he pled guilty to federal charges of making false statements to customs inspectors. This was a violation of his parole terms from the 1979 felonies, and he went back to jail.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul

[Binka]

18. Oh Goody Goody Another 5 Post Wonder Pontificating

Bombastic and all that!

[aaroh]

19. In April 2008 the trial continues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIf84llCRPc

And so the trial continues:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57009

[WhiteTara]

29. world net daily isn't a credible source n/t

[aaroh]

31. It still doesn't change the trial date.

[still_one]

17. I do know one thing, I do NOT necessarily trust what comes out of the NY Times

for the past 7 years their stories have not been particularly correct. Apart from Judith Miller, and the wonderful Jayson Blair story, I would like to remind everyone that when the NY Times endorsed Hillary, they commented that the paper was against the Iraq war from he start. Very inconvient memories they have if you ask me

The Times tried to emphasis a "sexual" affair between mccain and a lobbyist, through inuendo, instead of focusing MORE onmnimi mccain's association with lobbyists period. Probably the worst part of that story is how the NY Times held the story back until mccain had wrapped up his parties nomination. Does the newspaper have an agenda perhaps?

The Times has published staged photos, representing them otherwise

Of course how could we forget, The New York Times under the headline: U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.

They have misrepresented Gore:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150012

Tried to cook up sleeze on the Clintons:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240005

Of course with the times hiring Bill Kristol that should tell people that it is not opinion they want to spread, but propaganda, and pseudo entertainment

I could go on and on, but I want a lot more evidence of ACTUAL wrong-doing or illegality, before I believe something from the NY Times

[libbygurl]

22. Yes, the NYT has been schizoid at times -

- their ed. board endorsing Hillary while all but two of their columnists intensely critical of Hillary, also endorsing McCain while posting the lobbyist story about him on the front page.

Perhaps it seems schizoid and disconcerting to readers today only because we've got so used to an overwhelmingly single viewpoint in a paper or media outlet anymore thanks to the propagandistic rather than journalistic bent of FOX, Wash. Times, etc.

But the Chicago Sun-Times also ran stories about Rezko-Obama, no?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

[libbygurl]

23. oops, self-delete

[unc70]

25. Generally agree about NYT, but story now going national

The Chicago papers have been covering this for 2-3 years. In many ways, the Rezko/Blagovich investigation looks like the next chapter after the Gov. George Ryan version of the same. A couple of UK papers have covered the Auchi angle since he lives in the UK. (They are covering Obama a lot, partly because much of his Kenyan family now lives in the UK.) Now as the trial is about to begin, the NYT article signals that this is a national story. It will now be picked up by AP and then the rest of the media.

Several of the Illinois papers claim that part of the reason the Repubs have not attacked too much about Rezko is that nearly everyone in Chicago and in Illinois is involved in "pay to play".

Here are a couple of articles background articles in Chicago this morning:

Another governor who didn't know nuttin'

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/kadner/820936,030208Kadner.article

GOP is caught looking as the Rezko trial begins

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-kass-rezko-trial-blago-column,1,4819064.column

[libbygurl]

21. This is starting to look interesting...

nt

[libbygurl]

24. !

:kick:

[cloud75]

27. This proves what a LIAR obama is.

during the debates when Hillary called him out on rezko obama said that he was doing work for a law firm that was connected to rezko looks like there is a little bit more there.

[indimuse]

28. K&R!!

This is just the beginning for all you Obama protectors...do you know how many charges are against him? Obama KNEW he was under Fed Investigation..but chose to deal with him...chose to take $$$...look at all the charges and think ...is this anything you want near the WH??

[donkeyotay]

32. I wondered about his mortgage, but it seems he bought his house for cash

$1.65m is a lot of money. I thought maybe he'd gotten money from Rezko, but Obama's financial records show that he got a book advance from his publisher, Random House. We thought it was scandalous when Newt Gingrich got his book advance because it looked like the publisher was buying influence. Newt got $4.5m from Harper Collins owned by Rupert Murdoch. Random House and Harper Collins are apparently the same company now, but I'm not sure who owns them. Of course, Obama's advance of $1.9m looks more legit than Newt's did. But it still seems like whoever helped him buy his house, whether it was Bertlesman or Chicago University Hospital, member of Novation, can't help but wonder if they were buying a piece of the future president. So who they are and how it worked matters. Has he even been asked?