Obama, Rezco and the coming trial: Did Obama make a deal with the Devil?

[Didereaux]

The Rezko Connection: Obama's Achilles Heel?
"his week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the Rezko trial to begin Feb. 25."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

---------------------------------------------------------

Good, bad or indifferent the news headlines are going to carry this. And no matter who does the spinning it will fix in the American electorates mind the Obama-crook connection. No one paid a bit of attention when the story broke the first time. Nobody will avoid exposure. I am sure the Obama camp is way ahead on this, but I'm stumped as to how you counter it, or if you even try. He may just re-use his admission of it being a 'boneheaded mistake. But that doesn't mix well with 'experience' issues and rezko doesn't mix well with an 'honesty' no crooks message either...as the King of Siam would say "It's a puzzlement.

Obama had the land valued when he wanted to buy part of the lot.
Posted by aquart


""I told them if you can spare another 5 or 10 feet, I'd be happy to purchase it from you," Obama said. "They came back and said they could sell us up to 10 feet."

Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006."

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611010... >

One-sixth of Rezko's lot was worth $40,500. Six-sixths would therefore be worth $243,000. Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for a lot worth $243,000. Got it now? That is NOT full asking price. That's $382,000 TOO MUCH. Coincidentally, right next door, Obama is BUYING a house for $300,000 LESS than the asking price. Then he pays Rezko $64,000 TOO MUCH for the sixth of the lot he's adding to his property. If you can't smell the stench you haven't got a sense of smell.

I am sick with disappointment and I don't even like the guy. But I did think it would still be okay if he got in. Now I know that isn't true.

The first time this came up(at least nationally) Obama quickly admitted that it was an error, and called it a "bone-headed mistake"! Good response right? I thought so too, at the time. Then I spent some time following and looking at the thing. That response is tacit admission that he knew going in that the deal was 'tainted'. Bone-headed mistakes, in fact any mistake is something that could have been avoided with fore-thought. And a well educated person, especially one in the legal field is a master at using and understanding the language...he KNEW Rezko was simply buying a future IOU from a politician, Obama knew that as well.

Now let's spin it that Obama knew what Rezko was after, the IOU, but had no intentions of paying up when the marker was called: That is the lowest of thievery, that is fraud...it does not matter if its a pact with the devil, you shake hands and you live up to the deal...it's called integrity and honesty...otherwise it is known as fraud and theft.

Second spin Obama really didn't use 'bone-headed mistake' as I posited, but he simply meant the deal was just a piece of stupid karma that happens...'shit happens'. Okay, that kind of works on the surface. But it relies on the reader believing that Obama was unawares that the guy he was dealing with was a well known Chicago/Illinois shady character who made donations to politicians, lobbied them regularly and seemed to profit nicely by doing so...this is Chicago, Illinois this is the place you get your PHD in crooked politics. And Obama would ask us to believe that he, an ambitious young politican, newly elected to the State Legislature, was unawares that he was handling one of the better known 'pit vipers' of Illinois politics?

I rest my case. Let the trial begin.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. What's this "Whitewater" business I've been hearing all about?

[JuniperLea]

3. The Clintons were never nailed with that...

Nothing ever came from the accusations.

[Rockholm]

27. Change the subject much?

On edit: Bad spelling.

[JuniperLea]

2. "Oh, but he inspires me!"

I got yer inspiration right here... this could get interesting.

Thanks for posting... I'd forgotten about this.

[AX10]

4. But Obama is the "chosen one", therefore this does not matter.

:sarcasm:

[Nailzberg]

5. Let's hear it for RW talking points! What's next, Whitewater?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_have_a_real_estate_problem.html
Q: Does Obama have a real estate problem?
Was Obama’s real estate deal in Illinois really an issue?

A:A political patron from whom he bought a strip of land is under federal indictment, but there's no evidence Obama did anything improper.


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483&page=2
There is no mention of Obama in the Rezko indictment. Federal authorities say the investigation is focused on Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, identified in court filings as Public Figure A.

[Didereaux]

9. Indictment is a hard thing...Obama may have gotten lucky is all. Will his name come up in trial?

[kevsand]

11. No.

There's no reason for his name to come up in the trial, because the charges in the trial don't have anything to do with anything even remotely connected to Obama.

[Didereaux]

17. I agree, not as charges, as maybe a witness?

[kevsand]

35. Extremely unlikely.

Why would he possibly be a witness concerning events that had nothing to do with him and for which he was never present? The big target here is Gov. Blagojevich. Rezko was Blago's guy. That's who the fundraising benefited. That's who was peddling influence. It was all around the governor's campaign and the governor's office, and never anything to do with Obama.

[Hutzpa]

37. How I miss those early DU days

where a RW talking point like this could have been dumped.

:banghead:

[Dhalgren]

6. Look, I am quite the dim-wit when it comes to financial dealings,

so help me out here.

1) Obama paid under his property's value.

2) Rezko paid over the value of his property.

3) Obama pays Rezko more than twice the value of his 10 ft. strip.

I can see that this doesn't look right, but what is actually going on? And please make it simple, I can balance a check-book, but that's about it...

TIA

[LiberalHeart]

19. Here's what I'd like to see made simple...

1. Obama wants a house and piece of land.

2. The owner wants to sell both on the same day.

3. Obama can't afford both.

4. Obama goes to Rezko for "advice".

5. The person to whom he turned for advice has a wife who purchases the land Obama wants.

Why? Did Obama's request for advice prompt her to look at that land and think, wow, what a great investment so she scooped it up right from under him?

If so, didn't that tick off Obama? I mean to the point where he wouldn't be willing to give Rezko's wife more than double what his appraiser said the strip of land was worth?

Has the land remained vacant? If so, what was Mrs. Rezko's purpose in purchasing it?

Does Mrs. Rezko routinely purchase land in her name only?

Does what's left of the land -- if it's still vacant -- meet local zoning laws as being big enough to build on? If not, what good is it to her? And if it is big enough to be a buildable lot, is this an area where new construction is common?

[Nailzberg]

21. Your point 1 is incorrect

Obama didn't pay under the property value. He paid under the asking price. The two are equal.

Rezko paid the asking price, which was over the property value. While it may seem prudent to buy the land at that price, speculatively a plot next to Obama's has huge potential as an investment. There was another offer on the plot, to snatch it up it makes sense to pay the asking price outright.


So, onto the next deal, the strip Obama purchased. It was one-sixth of the plot. Rezko offered one-sixth the plot for one-sixth the appraised property value. Obama declines the cheap deal and pays one-sixth of what Rezko paid himself, one-sixth the original asking price, so he would not been seen as accepting the property under value. Neither party gained financially in the agreement.

The dealing is public record and was examined by the press before Obama announced his candidacy. No illegality or impropriety has been found or charged. I'm sure the press will give it another look now, and the Repubs will treat this like they treated Whitewater in the 90's, but neither one will find anything illegal. And really, Obama could have legally purchased the strip for the lower property value price, but that would have raised concerns that that Rezko in effect got Obama the property greatly discounted.

[dysfunctional press]

33. one question for you...

"So, onto the next deal, the strip Obama purchased. It was one-sixth of the plot. Rezko offered one-sixth the plot for one-sixth the appraised property value..."

do you have a link that says that the appraised value of the lot is $243,000? or are you just figuring that since the lot is 1/6 of the total area, the $40,500 is 1/6 of the appraised value of the total lot?

[Nailzberg]

34. Sorry, you are correct. The strip appraised for $40,500 value on its own.

That does not mean it as one-sixth the appraisal value of the entire lot. The remaining 5/6 would be worth more than 5/6 of the full lot, as it is still usable real estate.

But that makes this even more of a non-issue as I see it.

BY the way, I saw you commented that the Trib link didn't work.
the WaPo link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729.html
and a trib link :http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0611010273nov01,0,1188525.story?page=1&coll=chi_tab01_layout

[dysfunctional press]

38. that's exactly the point i was trying to make downthread...

that 1/6 of the lot is not as valuable per sq. ft as the larger lot, because it can still be built on.

if the full lot was worth 625K, and after obama's slice was taken off, the remaining 5/6 valued out at 585K, making obama's piece worth 40K(rounded)...but to avoid the appearance of impropriety, obama overpaid, by paying 1/6 of the lot price for 1/6 the lot.
some people were taking the 40.5K valuation of obama's slice of the lot, multiplying by 6, and deciding that the full value of the lot was 243K.

but i kinda think the people downthread finally got it, since they stopped coming back....well...i HOPE they got it.

[Nailzberg]

39. I read your post downthread and it makes perfect sense.

I faulted in my reply by attempting to explain the deal in their terms, which seems to be based on simple goods, not real estate.

Commodities are proportionate. If a ton of corn is worth $120, then 500 lbs. is worth $30. Real estate is not as simple. 5000 sq. ft. of land is not worth 1/4 of 20,000 sq ft of land. The remaining 15,000 sq ft would be worth more than 3/4 of the overall value. I don't pretend to be an expert in real estate, but I've studied enough to know that. Obviously, I don't need to tell you that.

[Justitia]

7. Oy....

[terisan]

8. Obama and Rezko had a 17 year long relationship. Rezko was a known underworld figure

according to the news stories in Illinois. Obama had received a lot of campaign money from Rezko which he apparently been returning.

[dysfunctional press]

10. the tribune link isn't working...

does anyone know if there was a house on the lot that obama bought a strip of? :shrug:

[Didereaux]

12. that land was EMPTY. just a barren lot(s)

[Didereaux]

13. seems it is now archived...the want $$$, but her is anopther snippet from it...

Early-career legal work puts senator on the defensive

Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.
Author: Rick Pearson
Date: Apr 24, 2007
Section: News
Text Word Count: 761
Abstract (Document Summary)

While was president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko's firm offered Obama a job. When Obama first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996, was among his first political donors. And when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko was a major fundraiser.

I was unawares the rezko connection had gone all the way back to when Obama was in school! What the fuck was this guy his GODFATHER or something?

[Didereaux]

14. WTF Rezko recruited him in Harvard? What is he Obamas' GODFATHER?

[dysfunctional press]

15. someone is making some possibly inaccurate assumptions...

"Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.

But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006."

...One-sixth of Rezko's lot was worth $40,500. Six-sixths would therefore be worth $243,000. Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for a lot worth $243,000. Got it now? That is NOT full asking price. That's $382,000 TOO MUCH.

just because the portion obama was buying was valued at $40,500, and it was 1/6 of the property, does NOT mean that the lot should then have a value of $243,000 or 6 times that strip. for instance- if the 5/6 of the lot that was left was still big enough to build on, it would obviously have more value per sq. foot than the 1/6 strip- which most likely wouldn't be big enough for building. there's also the question of where the strip was located on the lot, and other factors that come into play. if rezko's wife paid $625,000 for the lot, and the remaining 5/6 was still valued at say, $585,000- that would put the value of obama's strip at $40,000.

[Didereaux]

18. bad analogy, paying $1M for a hamburger does not raise its market value to that level...merely cause

...your family and creditors to have you committed! heheh

[dysfunctional press]

22. i don't get what you're trying to say there...

what i'm saying is that 1/6 of a lot is not necessarily worth 1/6 of the whole- there are other factors involved when it comes to real estate, and it looks like obama paid more than it was worth- where's the impropriety? (and mind you- i'm not an obama supporter)

[Didereaux]

23. that overpayment for an object does not set its market value, taxable value in some places,,,

but not Fair Market Value.

[dysfunctional press]

24. i'm still not following...

the lot was worth $625,000(the purchase price- set by the market), and obama's 1/6 portion would have been worth only $40,500, but to avoid any appearance of impropriety, he paid 1/6 of the price of the entire lot- even tho' his 1/6 portion was worth less than 1/6 of the whole.

again i ask- where is the impropriety? :shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. As QuestionAll repeatedly pointed out to you, Real Estate is NOT a Fungible Market Item.

1/6 of my family's lot is NOT worth 1/6 of the purchase price for home and lot!!!!

I see nothing improper in what Obama did. You are saying he OVERPAID for an item

To avoid appearances of impropriety.

[Didereaux]

26. no REZKO overpaid, Obama benefitted.

[dysfunctional press]

28. what did rezko overpay on?

and how did you come to that conclusion?

[Didereaux]

29. omg read the damned thread

[dysfunctional press]

30. i did- how do you figure that rezko overpaid?

if 1/6 of a lot is valued at $40,500- that DOES NOT mean that the entire lot would then be worth $243,000 (6 times 40.5K). some people on the thread seem to be making that very incorrect assumption.

so- with that in mind, please explain to me what rezko overpaid on, in your opinion, by how much, and how you came to that conclusion.
if you have a working link to an article with all the facts and figures, that would be great.

[Didereaux]

31. I know you are baiting so that the thread gets locked...sorry to disappoint.

[dysfunctional press]

32. no, i'm not- i just want you to answer the question that you are avoiding.

how did you come to the conclusion that rezko overpaid? :shrug:

btw- how would answering that question get the thread locked?? :shrug:

[Didereaux]

16. Link to further DU-P discussion of this issue...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4031274&mesg_id=4031274

[geiger]

20. gimmea break

[Hutzpa]

36. Why don't we take the election

and hand it over to the Republicans then.


Looks like Clinton's Shills and Hawks are not going to rest, they keep throwing mud,
but you know what, people lose their integrity based on money.

Instead of focusing on your candidates policies, you more on dirty politics
not that I expect you to understand.


How stupid can we get.

Do we really want the Republicans to turn to our nominee in 2008 and say "you voted for this war and I didn't"? Think about it.

:spank: :spank:



edited: to add smiley

[kelligesq]

40. Hasn't Rezko said he will testify AGAINST Obama?

I thought I heard that.

[Nailzberg]

41. I didn't hear that. You have a link?

[Didereaux]

42. the ONLY links to that are to Andy Martin saying that he thought Rezko might...nothing credible

lots of cross-referenceing that goes in circles. Just internet noise.

[awaysidetraveler]

43. The U.S. vs. Rezko is really just General Electric vs. Obama

A Letter to the ACLU:

	The United States vs Antoin Rezko and Ali Ata is really
General Electric vs. Obama.  

	Presumably you guys know a thing or two about the prosecution
and the judge on this case, but here’s a quick review.  First,
lets take a look at the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald.  James
Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to the position of Dept. of
Justice Special Counsel after John Ashcroft recused himself. 
Special Attn. Patrick Fitzgerald is notable for having Janet
Miller imprisoned for ninety days for refusing to out her
source.  Judith Miller remains to date the first American ever
to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal
appellate opinion she was not permitted to read.  According to
Bob Woodward and four other prominent journalists, her
imprisonment was unnecessary as Patrick Fitzgerald already
knew her source to be Richard Armitage.  

	George W. Bush appointed U.S. District Court Judge St. Eves
after her work as the Associate Attorney Prosecutor for the
Whitewater fraud case.  During that case, St. Eves herself
took the stand in an attempt to discredit Susan McDougal’s
accusation that Whitewater investigators had pressured her to
tell lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton.  On June 8th of
2006, Judge St. Eves was condemned by the National Lawyer’s
Guild for allowing a coerced confession–by way of torture–into
U.S. courts.  Judge St. Eves and Patrick Fitzgerald are also
notable for sending Conrad Black, media mogul and owner of the
Chicago Sun-Times, to prison on charges of fraud.

	None of this looks good for the defense, but Antoin Rezko
isn’t the real story here.  Rezko, with his weird name (it
means “risk” in Syrian), his slum renovations and his
connections to the Emir of Qatar, is just the circus.  If you
want the real story, you’ve got to look at Rezko’s victim.

	General Electric Capital Corporation, the financial arm of
General Electric, claims that Antoin Rezko defrauded them of
10.5 million dollars worth of assets.  So GE–owner of NBC,
three billion in Iraq war contracts and many more billions in
oil and gas contracts–is the victim, and Antoin Resko is the
alleged criminal.  General Electric, which has large financial
ties to the Emir of Qatar and which has donated over eight
million to George W. Bush and the G.O.P., is the victim.  

	Is Barak Obama’s political career just collateral damage in
this fraud case against Rezko?  While it’s impossible to say
for certain, it sure is easy to follow the tracks of this
elephant.  General Electric has billions to lose if Barak
Obama wins the White House, leads America out of Iraq and
pushes Americans to make the switch to 25% renewable energy by
2025.  

	So now Prosecutor Fitzgerald and Judge St. Eves agree that
the trial date of February 25th, 2008 is adequate despite the
1.5 million documents in discovery, some of which have not yet
been presented to the defense. This date is ideal only to the
purpose of discrediting Barak Obama’s candidacy and dividing
the Democratic Party.

	Please, in reviewing this case, keep an eye on the press that
you read.  The Chicago Sun-Tribune first published the
Obama-Rezko articles while the owner, Conrad Black, faced a
trial by Fitzgerald and St. Eves.  The trial and its verdicts
were considered widely controversial and suspicious.  A jury
found Conrad Black guilty of only four of the thirteen charges
brought against him, but this was only after a juror by the
name of Kelly discovered documents that were never presented
by the defense (CBC television).  Whether Conrad Black used
his influence with the Chicago Sun-Times to avoid prison time,
or whether he’s just a fraud doesn’t matter: one way or the
other, these original articles about the Obama-Rezko
connection cannot be regarded as credible references about
Obama.  As General Electric owns NBC and had billions to gain
by first airing the story, NBC’s reporting of this story
should also be regarded as suspect.

	With the integrity of the Democratic Presidential Primary at
stake, it is vital that the A.C.L.U. investigate this trial
now–and not after–this kangaroo court succeeds in manipulating
our 2000 election.

							Sincerely,
	
							Tynan Kelly

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[awaysidetraveler]

45. The U.S vs. Rezko is really GE vs. Obama

A Letter to the ACLU:

The United States vs Antoin Rezko and Ali Ata is really General Electric vs. Obama.

Presumably you guys know a thing or two about the prosecution and the judge on this case, but here’s a quick review. First, lets take a look at the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to the position of Dept. of Justice Special Counsel after John Ashcroft recused himself. Special Attn. Patrick Fitzgerald is notable for having Janet Miller imprisoned for ninety days for refusing to out her source. Judith Miller remains to date the first American ever to be sent to jail based on facts she never saw and a federal appellate opinion she was not permitted to read. According to Bob Woodward and four other prominent journalists, her imprisonment was unnecessary as Patrick Fitzgerald already knew her source to be Richard Armitage.

George W. Bush appointed U.S. District Court Judge St. Eves after her work as the Associate Attorney Prosecutor for the Whitewater fraud case. During that case, St. Eves herself took the stand in an attempt to discredit Susan McDougal’s accusation that Whitewater investigators had pressured her to tell lies about Bill and Hillary Clinton. On June 8th of 2006, Judge St. Eves was condemned by the National Lawyer’s Guild for allowing a coerced confession–by way of torture–into U.S. courts. Judge St. Eves and Patrick Fitzgerald are also notable for sending Conrad Black, media mogul and owner of the Chicago Sun-Times, to prison on charges of fraud.

None of this looks good for the defense, but Antoin Rezko isn’t the real story here. Rezko, with his weird name (it means “risk” in Syrian), his slum renovations and his connections to the Emir of Qatar, is just the circus. If you want the real story, you’ve got to look at Rezko’s victim.

General Electric Capital Corporation, the financial arm of General Electric, claims that Antoin Rezko defrauded them of 10.5 million dollars worth of assets. So GE–owner of NBC, three billion in Iraq war contracts and many more billions in oil and gas contracts–is the victim, and Antoin Resko is the alleged criminal. General Electric, which has large financial ties to the Emir of Qatar and which has donated over eight million to George W. Bush and the G.O.P., is the victim.

Is Barak Obama’s political career just collateral damage in this fraud case against Rezko? While it’s impossible to say for certain, it sure is easy to follow the tracks of this elephant. General Electric has billions to lose if Barak Obama wins the White House, leads America out of Iraq and pushes Americans to make the switch to 25% renewable energy by 2025.

So now Prosecutor Fitzgerald and Judge St. Eves agree that the trial date of February 25th, 2008 is adequate despite the 1.5 million documents in discovery, some of which have not yet been presented to the defense. This date is ideal only to the purpose of discrediting Barak Obama’s candidacy and dividing the Democratic Party.

Please, in reviewing this case, keep an eye on the press that you read. The Chicago Sun-Tribune first published the Obama-Rezko articles while the owner, Conrad Black, faced a trial by Fitzgerald and St. Eves. The trial and its verdicts were considered widely controversial and suspicious. A jury found Conrad Black guilty of only four of the thirteen charges brought against him, but this was only after a juror by the name of Kelly discovered documents that were never presented by the defense (CBC television). Whether Conrad Black used his influence with the Chicago Sun-Times to avoid prison time, or whether he’s just a fraud doesn’t matter: one way or the other, these original articles about the Obama-Rezko connection cannot be regarded as credible references about Obama. As General Electric owns NBC and had billions to gain by first airing the story, NBC’s reporting of this story should also be regarded as suspect.

With the integrity of the Democratic Presidential Primary at stake, it is vital that the A.C.L.U. investigate this trial now–and not after–this kangaroo court succeeds in manipulating our 2000 election.

Sincerely,

Tynan Kelly