Blatant lies

[TradeNurkicNow]

What e_blazer is ignoring (I do appreciate you offering the lone dissenting opinion in this thread) is that the investigator said she acted unethically and then Palin turned around and said she didn't. Like, did she read the report? Maybe if the press were allowed to ask her questions, we'd get some answers as to why she would say such a thing when she was FOUND to have acted unethically.

We can argue about ethics all day, but it doesn't excuse what the investigator found and the subsequent comments by Palin.

 

[e_blazer]

Why must a discussion about Palin or McCain always devolve into bashing Obama? Why is it responsive to say, "well, we're no worse than the other guy?" Shouldn't the relevant question be whether ANY candidate is ethical, and their government acts open and transparent? When I read a response trying to change the issue to the other candidate, it is obvious to me that there IS no defense. If you want to discuss Obama's dealings, open another thread--or contribute to the hundred or so that have already been created.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of this tactic. It is embarassing, and a little sad.

You are absolutely correct that the question should be whether ANY candidate is ethical. Get back to me when you find one who has never used his or her office for some minor personal gain, or perhaps to benefit a friend or supporter or even to the disadvantage of an opponent. Candidates for office are human beings and we all make mistakes. Perhaps Palin's motives were pure revenge. Perhaps they were based upon her having a close personal understanding of what this trooper was like and wanting him removed from a position that demands sound judgment. None of us will ever know with certainty.

What is embarassing and a little sad, IMHO, is expressing indignation over Palin's transgressions, to whatever extent they are such, while being willing to ignore the flaws of the candidate that you support for president. Do two wrongs make a right? Obviously not, but hypocrisy isn't pretty either.

 

[e_blazer]

What e_blazer is ignoring (I do appreciate you offering the lone dissenting opinion in this thread) is that the investigator said she acted unethically and then Palin turned around and said she didn't. Like, did she read the report? Maybe if the press were allowed to ask her questions, we'd get some answers as to why she would say such a thing when she was FOUND to have acted unethically.

We can argue about ethics all day, but it doesn't excuse what the investigator found and the subsequent comments by Palin.

That's a valid point, hoojacks, but politicians spin things everytime they open their mouths. Palin's camp can point to the fact that the report says that the firing of Monegan was not out of line and that no charges against her are recommended. Anything beyond that is pure spin.

 

[e_blazer]

"the Democrats" did not bring the investigation of Palin. The legislative committee (which voted unanimously to release Branchflower's report) was composed of 8 republicans and 4 democrats.

And the other troopergate inquiry, the one run by the Personnel board, the one that is still ongoing - that one was brought by Sarah Palin.

barfo

Edit - sorry, I was wrong. The correct count is 10 republicans and 4 democrats.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the original complaint was brought by two Democrats on the committee and that once the complaint was filed, there was no choice but to investigate it. I don't dispute that once the investigation was underway, it was conducted in a bipartisan fashion.

 

[Dumpy]

You are absolutely correct that the question should be whether ANY candidate is ethical. Get back to me when you find one who has never used his or her office for some minor personal gain, or perhaps to benefit a friend or supporter or even to the disadvantage of an opponent. Candidates for office are human beings and we all make mistakes. Perhaps Palin's motives were pure revenge. Perhaps they were based upon her having a close personal understanding of what this trooper was like and wanting him removed from a position that demands sound judgment. None of us will ever know with certainty.

What is embarassing and a little sad, IMHO, is expressing indignation over Palin's transgressions, to whatever extent they are such, while being willing to ignore the flaws of the candidate that you support for president. Do two wrongs make a right? Obviously not, but hypocrisy isn't pretty either.

please don't profess to reading my mind, thanks.

 

[e_blazer]

please don't profess to reading my mind, thanks.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the general proposition that seems to be being expressed in this thread that Palin's transgressions make her unqualified for the office she seeks, while turning a blind eye to Obama's own ethics issues.

 

[barfo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the original complaint was brought by two Democrats on the committee and that once the complaint was filed, there was no choice but to investigate it. I don't dispute that once the investigation was underway, it was conducted in a bipartisan fashion.

Nope.

The Legislative Council is a panel of lawmakers who tend to legislative business when lawmakers are not meeting in regular session.

On Monday, the council voted 12-0 to spend up to $100,000 "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

The beginning of the investigation was a 12-0 vote by the mostly republican panel (2 members were absent).

barfo

 

[barfo]

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the general proposition that seems to be being expressed in this thread that Palin's transgressions make her unqualified for the office she seeks, while turning a blind eye to Obama's own ethics issues.

I think the general proposition in this thread is that Palin is lying about the outcome of the investigation. Given that she would lie about something that is obviously verifiable (the report is available for download), then what else might she be lying about?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the general proposition that seems to be being expressed in this thread that Palin's transgressions make her unqualified for the office she seeks, while turning a blind eye to Obama's own ethics issues.

Not that this by itself makes her ineligible, but it is relevant to her suitability. Especially when she runs on a supposed record of ethics and fighting corruption.

Why is it only about Palin? Because that's the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss Obama and Rezko, why would you do it in this thread unless to try and redirect away from Palin? There are plenty of Obama threads and, if none of them work for you, you can always create a new thread.

 

[e_blazer]

Nope.



The beginning of the investigation was a 12-0 vote by the mostly republican panel (2 members were absent).

barfo

I've just done a little research and you're right that the makeup of the committee is 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. You're also correct that it was a 12-0 vote. The two members that I was thinking of were Sen. Kim Elton, the chairman of the committee, and Sen. Hollis French, a former state prosecutor, who was given the task of managing the contractor for the investigation. Both are Democrats. French is the one who said:

“‘If they had done their job they never would have picked her,’ said French. ‘Now they may have to deal with an October surprise,’ he said, referring to the scheduled release Oct. 31 of the committee’s final report.”

 

[e_blazer]

Not that this by itself makes her ineligible, but it is relevant to her suitability. Especially when she runs on a supposed record of ethics and fighting corruption.

Of course it's relevant, as is Obama's ethics issue. Obama, I believe, is also campaigning as a reformer and an agent of change.

Why is it only about Palin? Because that's the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss Obama and Rezko, why would you do it in this thread unless to try and redirect away from Palin? There are plenty of Obama threads and, if none of them work for you, you can always create a new thread.

So it's not permitted in this thread to reference the issue of Obama's ethics because this thread is specifically about Palin? It seems to me that the two subjects are pretty closely related. If we're going to discuss ethics and their relevance in this election, then it's going to get a little messy if we have to post links back and forth to other threads instead of just laying things out in the topic at hand.

I have no problem admitting that Palin blew it in the way she handled this issue. Is it really so hard to admit that Obama may have made a similar misstep?

 

[barfo]

I have no problem admitting that Palin blew it in the way she handled this issue.

You don't, but Palin does.

Is it really so hard to admit that Obama may have made a similar misstep?

He may have, but there isn't any evidence that he did. That's the difference.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

So it's not permitted in this thread to reference the issue of Obama's ethics because this thread is specifically about Palin?

It's permitted, of course. It just seems a little weak to first try to justify Palin's actions and then, when it becomes hard to do so, say "Well, let's talk about Obama then." That's call redirecting. It's like trying to defend global warming as not man-made and then, when failing to do so, saying "Well, Clinton got a blow job from an intern." Sure, maybe he did, and maybe it's important...it's just a poor way to move the focus of a discussion.

If we're going to discuss ethics and their relevance in this election, then it's going to get a little messy if we have to post links back and forth to other threads instead of just laying things out in the topic at hand.

This isn't a thread about "ethics in the election." It's a thread about a specific news event, regarding Palin. It's not at all messy to discuss Obama's transgressions in a thread about Obama and keeping this thread about this Palin issue.

I have no problem admitting that Palin blew it in the way she handled this issue. Is it really so hard to admit that Obama may have made a similar misstep?

No, it's not hard, if he did. It's just not related to this topic. If you feel you have evidence of his misstep, I'd be happy to discuss it in a discussion about Obama.

 

[Dumpy]

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the general proposition that seems to be being expressed in this thread that Palin's transgressions make her unqualified for the office she seeks, while turning a blind eye to Obama's own ethics issues.

oh, ok. I don't think this is enough to change anyone's mind as whether to vote Republican. It does go, however, to her ethical values and where she believes her authority extends as a public servant. What I personnaly find most troubling is that apparently her husband--an unelected man without even a college education--was permitted to set up in a corner of her office, and try to pressure the police chief (or whatever his title was) into firing his former stepbrother, in the name of the governor. There are just so many things wrong with that, but let's focus on the appropriateness of giving her husband free reign to do as he pleased. I see this as akin to Hillary firing the white house travel office back in '92 or '93. There may be minor differences--most notably the presence of a revenge motive here--but they seem to be pretty similar.

It really goes to her judgment as vice president. Bill and Hillary got skewered in '92 or '93, and Palin deserves the same reaction.

As for Obama . . . I don't know all the facts, but even taken as true, for some reason I'm not quite as troubled. I guess it is probably because Obama wasn't using his public office to pursue a private agenda. [to give an example, it is clearly unethical to run a real estate side-business out of a government office . . . or to sell some government benefit such as transit subsidies on Craig's list . . .and there have been cases where that has happened] Now, if there was some evidence that Obama gave some benefit to Rezko in the future, I would be clearly very troubled. So far, I haven't seen that. He certainly should have been aware that there would have been an appearance of impropriety, though--and even if this amounts to no more than that, he should be reprimanded for that alone.

As for me, it is of primary importance that elected officials take their ethical responsibilities seriously. Federal employees are held to strict ethical standards--there are penalties and repurcussions for violating them--and have to undergo annual training. Ethics, open and transparent decision-making processes--these are basic things that must be in place for all the people--American citizens--to have a say in government activity.

Over the past eight years, government agencies have had a lousy record at transparent decision-making. Over the past 15 years, elected officials--congressmen and governors--have engaged in increasingly unethical behavior. I look at the lists over at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which includes the most unethical congressmen of either party. All of them should be voted out of office, and some should be prosecuted. The fact that some people are apparently willing to overlook Palin's indiscretions simply because they intend to vote republican is very disturbing. Are you willing to forgive her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, who was one of the most corrupt governors of his time, simply because he was a republican, too? We all want to believe that "our" candidates are more ethical than "the other guys," but we all have to get over it, and all work together to ensure that our representatives--regardless of whether they be republicans, democrats, or independents--adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards.

Everyone makes mistakes, especially earlier in their lives. People should be forgiven for actions taken 20 years ago, and given a chance to prove that they have learned from their experiences. But we have to draw the line somewhere. If Governor Palin doesn't grasp that letting her husband take action in the name of her office is inappropriate, then, well, she has no business being in public office.

Period.

 

[e_blazer]

It's permitted, of course. It just seems a little weak to first try to justify Palin's actions and then, when it becomes hard to do so, say "Well, let's talk about Obama then." That's call redirecting. It's like trying to defend global warming as not man-made and then, when failing to do so, saying "Well, Clinton got a blow job from an intern." Sure, maybe he did, and maybe it's important...it's just a poor way to move the focus of a discussion.

A. I didn't try to justify Palin's actions. I simply pointed out that the ethics investigation found that she was not out of line in firing Monegan. From that standpoint, the title of this thread is, IMO, over the top. She felt vindicated that she was found to be within her rights as governor in her decision to dismiss Monegan, which was the original basis for the investigation. Obviously, she distorted this bit of vindication in her statment that she had been cleared of doing anything unethical or potentially illegal.

B. A comparison of ethical failings of Palin with Obama is hardly the same as redirecting global warming to a BJ. I believe that my point that there's a bit of hypocrisy, or at least rampant partisanship, in calling Palin on her issue while ignoring Obama's is worthy of discussion in this thread. If you don't agree, feel free to ignore my posts.

This isn't a thread about "ethics in the election." It's a thread about a specific news event, regarding Palin. It's not at all messy to discuss Obama's transgressions in a thread about Obama and keeping this thread about this Palin issue.

This may be a thread about a specific news event, but since when are we so anal around here that topics can't be expanded to related issues?

No, it's not hard, if he did. It's just not related to this topic. If you feel you have evidence of his misstep, I'd be happy to discuss it in a discussion about Obama.

There's no debate about the basic facts of the Rezko deal. Obama himself has admitted that he blew it when he allowed himself to be involved in a real estate transaction that he could not have made on his own without the assitance of Rezko buying the lot next door. IMO, the fact that there was no ethics investigation against him in Illinois is not an indicator that what he did was not unethical as much as it is an indictment of Democratic machine politics in that state.

 

[barfo]

A. I didn't try to justify Palin's actions. I simply pointed out that the ethics investigation found that she was not out of line in firing Monegan. From that standpoint, the title of this thread is, IMO, over the top. She felt vindicated that she was found to be within her rights as governor in her decision to dismiss Monegan, which was the original basis for the investigation. Obviously, she distorted this bit of vindication in her statment that she had been cleared of doing anything unethical or potentially illegal.

She distorted? Was it a distortion when Bill Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman?

The firing of Monegan was not the sole basis for the investigation. See my previous post in this thread, where I posted:

"to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

Clearly the "and" in that statement suggests that the investigation, from the outset, was not strictly limited to determining whether she had the right to fire Monegan. Yes, the McCain camp is claiming that the ethics violation is an unjustified fishing expedition outside the scope of the inquiry, but that's just another lie. Or distortion, if you prefer.

There's no debate about the basic facts of the Rezko deal. Obama himself has admitted that he blew it when he allowed himself to be involved in a real estate transaction that he could not have made on his own without the assitance of Rezko buying the lot next door. IMO, the fact that there was no ethics investigation against him in Illinois is not an indicator that what he did was not unethical as much as it is an indictment of Democratic machine politics in that state.

There is nothing unethical about Rezko doing a favor for Obama. To make it an ethical violation you have to have some evidence that Obama did Rezko a favor back in his role as a public official. There is no such evidence (or you'd be posting about it). It looks bad, because Rezko turned out to be dirty, but the fact that he's committed other crimes doesn't prove that his deal with Obama was criminal. Given that no evidence of Obama's wrongdoing has been unearthed (and no doubt it has been searched for diligently by the opposition), it seems to me that we have to presume him innocent.

That's a rather different situation than Palin, who has been found to have violated ethics laws, and where the evidence of such is public record.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

This may be a thread about a specific news event, but since when are we so anal around here that topics can't be expanded to related issues?

It's not a matter of being anal, IMO. It's a matter of political debates being annoying when people attempt to redirect the topic because they either can't defend one side of it or don't like the result of the discussion.

There's no hypocrisy...we have been and remain willing to discuss whatever ethics you think Obama has violated. Just not as an attempt to switch the focus of a Palin thread away from Palin. It's a standard argument trick and, in my opinion, it's not anal to request (not force) that you not engage in it.

 

[e_blazer]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, Minstrel. While I understand the general complaint about redirection, I don't think it applies here because a comment about Obama's questionable ethics choice is related to the specific topic at hand. As for Obama's Rezko deal, I think the record is pretty clear and there's no need to discuss it further.

 

[e_blazer]

She distorted? Was it a distortion when Bill Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman?

The firing of Monegan was not the sole basis for the investigation. See my previous post in this thread, where I posted:



Clearly the "and" in that statement suggests that the investigation, from the outset, was not strictly limited to determining whether she had the right to fire Monegan. Yes, the McCain camp is claiming that the ethics violation is an unjustified fishing expedition outside the scope of the inquiry, but that's just another lie. Or distortion, if you prefer.

The original complaint related specifically to the Monegan firing. The committee chose to expand it. I've said repeatedly that Palin is spinning the story, but you fail to acknowledge that the decision at least cleared her in respect to the Monegan firing.

There is nothing unethical about Rezko doing a favor for Obama. To make it an ethical violation you have to have some evidence that Obama did Rezko a favor back in his role as a public official. There is no such evidence (or you'd be posting about it). It looks bad, because Rezko turned out to be dirty, but the fact that he's committed other crimes doesn't prove that his deal with Obama was criminal. Given that no evidence of Obama's wrongdoing has been unearthed (and no doubt it has been searched for diligently by the opposition), it seems to me that we have to presume him innocent.

At the risk of disturbing Minstrel by continuing to discuss this, your position is absolutely incorrect. While laws vary from state to state, it's an ethics violation almost anywhere to take a money or a favor that gives you monetary advantage from someone who may eventually expect a return on that favor. In Oregon, a government official has to disclose any gift worth more than $100. Rezko was clearly someone who courted favor from politicians in order to get return favors in the future. It may not have been illegal for Obama to take the money under Illinois law, but it was clearly unethical.

 

[barfo]

The original complaint related specifically to the Monegan firing. The committee chose to expand it. I've said repeatedly that Palin is spinning the story, but you fail to acknowledge that the decision at least cleared her in respect to the Monegan firing.

I need to acknowledge that? Ok, I acknowledge that. It is not a matter of dispute.

At the risk of disturbing Minstrel by continuing to discuss this, your position is absolutely incorrect. While laws vary from state to state, it's an ethics violation almost anywhere to take a money or a favor that gives you monetary advantage from someone who may eventually expect a return on that favor. In Oregon, a government official has to disclose any gift worth more than $100. Rezko was clearly someone who courted favor from politicians in order to get return favors in the future. It may not have been illegal for Obama to take the money under Illinois law, but it was clearly unethical.

Are you saying that it was morally unethical, but not against ethics laws? If you want to pass moral, rather than legal judgment, then it seems to me you'd want to know what Obama was thinking when he accepted Rezko's help, and what he knew of Rezko's dirty dealings with other politicians. Do you?

I think your theory of ethics violations, as stated, is absolutely incorrect. Suppose I'm the mayor. Suppose my neighbor Bob and I go to a restaurant, and he pays. Suppose he has a expectation that I will pay the next time. Is that an ethics violation? Obviously not, since it doesn't involve my role as mayor.

There is no evidence that Rezko expected, or Obama furnished, favors from Obama as an elected official. The fact that Rezko was later convicted of seeking such favors from other officials does not automatically make Obama guilty. I'm not saying there could not have been such an arrangement - but I believe the rule in this country is innocent until proven guilty, and Obama hasn't been proven guilty, and in fact no evidence has even been put forth. Knowing a criminal is not the same as being a criminal.

barfo

 

[barfo]

For what it's worth, the text of the Illinois ethics law (amended in 1998) is here. Interestingly, the chief democratic senate co-sponsor of this bill was one B. Obama.

It would seem that there are two problems with claiming the land deal violates the ethics law.
First, Obama paid for the land, so you'd have to show that he paid less than FMV so that it could be considered a gift under the law. Second, if it is a gift, then gifts between friends are excluded from the act unless the recipient "has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position or employment of the member, officer, employee, or judge and not because of the personal friendship." So you'd need to show that Obama knew Rezko was trying to extract an official favor from him.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

The e-mail record shows that Monegan had gone against the Governor's wishes in seeking federal funding for the State Police. Those actions by themselves warranted his dismissal.

No, they didn't. They are part of his job, and done to provide safety and service for Alaskans which Palin refused to provide for personal reasons (the brother-in-law thing).

And that's an absurd point to attempt anyway.

Palin's Nowhere Bridge scam where she sought out and kept hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal Funding which she never even intended to spend on what she said it was for shows she is not opposed to accepting Federal Funding for her state, so why would she object to much less Federal Funding for the State Police?

 

[Denny Crane]

I find it quite hilarious that the same people on the Internet (nobody here in particular) were all over Ken Starr and his report of actual crimes and misdemeanors by Bill Clinton, yet are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

"It was just a BJ" was the cry, even though the man lied publicly in front of the cameras to every american and that includes the people investigating him. He abused the power of his office by denying a common woman her legitimate day in court. He obstructed justice by sending his entire cabinet out to lie on his behalf and his surrogates to harrass anyone stepping forward to substantiate claims against him and the prosecutorial staff. He lied under oath and was outright busted doing it on video tape shown to the world on every network.

He was impeached and put on trial. The "jury" being made up of enough partisan Democrats to squash the proper "verdict" did not remove him from office. When it was over, he declared his innocence and the "verdict" his vindication.

He was later disbarred by his home state of Arkansas, the Supreme Court, and he was ordered to pay $900K in damages to the woman who was denied justice. He declared his innocence.

Some people sure set the bar low for real crimes and misdemeanors and pooh poohed the Special Prosecutor's report. "Partisan!" they claimed, even though the man was appointed by Clinton's own attorney general. Or they minimize the whole slew of crimes committed to cover up his personally embarrassing acts.

The only thing that isn't hypocritical is that the same people who said things like "drag a $5 bill through a trailer park and you get Paula Jones" are doing and saying the same things to and about Palin.

 

[Denny Crane]

For what it's worth, the text of the Illinois ethics law (amended in 1998) is here. Interestingly, the chief democratic senate co-sponsor of this bill was one B. Obama.

It would seem that there are two problems with claiming the land deal violates the ethics law.
First, Obama paid for the land, so you'd have to show that he paid less than FMV so that it could be considered a gift under the law. Second, if it is a gift, then gifts between friends are excluded from the act unless the recipient "has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position or employment of the member, officer, employee, or judge and not because of the personal friendship." So you'd need to show that Obama knew Rezko was trying to extract an official favor from him.

barfo

Obama received $1M in benefits directly from Rezko.

Here's an article from Obama's home town paper:

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

Obama's letters for Rezko

NOT A FAVOR? | As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer's deal

June 13, 2007
<!-- Article By Line --> BY TIM NOVAK Staff Reporter/tnovak@suntimes.com

<!-- Article's First Paragraph --> <!-- BlogBurst ContentStart --> As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.
<!-- BlogBurst ContentEnd --> <!-- start sidebar --> http://javascript<b></b>:dc_popup_w...llbars=no,resizable=no,width=650,height=650')

Barack Obama backed the effort by Tony Rezko (inset) and Allison Davis - Rezko's partner and Obama's former boss - to win taxpayer funds to build the Cottage View Terrace apartments.
(AP/Sun-Times files)

<!-- BlogBurst ContentStart --> Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.

The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

On Tuesday, Bill Burton, press secretary for Obama's presidential campaign, said the letters Obama wrote in support of the development weren't intended as a favor to Rezko or Davis.

"This wasn't done as a favor for anyone," Burton said in a written statement. "It was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project.

"I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago," the statement said. "There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district. . . . They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It's a successful project. It's meant a lot to the community, and he's proud to have supported it.''

The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened five years ago at 4801 S. Cottage Grove, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens.

Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project."

Davis couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday.

'Boneheaded' deal in 2005

Since announcing his presidential bid, Obama has faced repeated questions about his 17-year relationship with Rezko, one of his earliest political contributors, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama. Rezko backed Obama's election to the Illinois Senate in 1996, his successful re-election bids and his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate.

Two years ago, the two men were involved in a real estate deal that Obama later apologized for, calling it "boneheaded'' and a "mistake'' because the transaction occurred while Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko's wife paid full price for a vacant lot in Chicago's historic Kenwood district on the same day Obama bought the mansion next door from the same property owner for $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife subsequently sold a sliver of the land to Obama.

Obama's relationship with Rezko dates to the senator's days as a student at Harvard Law School, when Rezko offered him a job, which Obama turned down.

After graduation, Obama returned to Chicago and joined Davis' small law firm -- then known as Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland -- which specialized in helping developers build housing for the poor. Five of those deals included Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp. Those Rezmar projects ran into trouble. Some buildings ended up being boarded up. Some went into foreclosure.

While Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he continued to work for the law firm, which Davis left in 1997 to become a developer.

Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. The city of Chicago owned the land -- nearly two acres tainted by lead, benzene and other toxic chemicals.

Davis is a member of the Chicago Plan Commission. He was originally appointed to the commission in 1991 by his friend, Mayor Daley. Davis, like Rezko, has been a prolific campaign fund-raiser for politicians including Daley and Obama.

Soon after they incorporated New Kenwood in 1998, Davis and Rezko got letters of support from elected officials -- Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) and state Rep. Lou Jones (D-Chicago), whose districts included the proposed project.

Firm paid city $1 for land

New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district. "I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. "This project will provide much needed housing for Fourth Ward citizens.''

At the time he wrote the letters, Obama was also a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland, the law firm Davis formerly headed. Among the firm's clients were several companies owned by Davis and Rezko. The firm did not represent New Kenwood.

Davis and Rezko hired Daley & George, the law firm of the mayor's brother Michael, to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago.

Rezko and Davis paid the city $1 for the land and spent more than $100,000 to clean it up, including the removal of an underground storage tank. Some tainted land was left behind, but state environmental officials approved construction after Rezko and Davis agreed to cover the polluted areas with parking lots, sidewalks or three feet of dirt, records show.

The $14.6 million Cottage View Terrace was funded entirely by city, state and federal taxpayers.

The project included $855,000 in development fees for New Kenwood. Records don't show how Davis and Rezko split the money. Davis owned 51 percent of New Kenwood, Rezko 49 percent, according to the records.

In addition to the development fees, a separate Davis-owned company stood to make another $900,000 through federal tax credits.

Cottage View Terrace was supposed to be managed by Davis' longtime business partner, William Moorehead. But Moorehead said last week that his company was dumped before the apartments opened in 2002. The apartments are now managed by Urban Property Advisors, a company owned by Davis' son, Cullen Davis.

Moorehead is due to report to prison next month to begin serving a four-year sentence for stealing more than $1 million from the Robert Taylor Homes and other public housing projects he managed for the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department, as well as from two developments he co-owned with Davis near Cabrini-Green on the North Side.

 

[barfo]

I find it quite hilarious that the same people on the Internet (nobody here in particular) were all over Ken Starr and his report of actual crimes and misdemeanors by Bill Clinton, yet are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

Seems like that argument applies to both sides of the aisle. Just as you don't see the people who supported Clinton supporting Palin, I don't see the people who were denouncing Clinton denouncing Palin, either.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

For what it's worth, the text of the Illinois ethics law (amended in 1998) is here. Interestingly, the chief democratic senate co-sponsor of this bill was one B. Obama.

It would seem that there are two problems with claiming the land deal violates the ethics law.
First, Obama paid for the land, so you'd have to show that he paid less than FMV so that it could be considered a gift under the law. Second, if it is a gift, then gifts between friends are excluded from the act unless the recipient "has reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position or employment of the member, officer, employee, or judge and not because of the personal friendship." So you'd need to show that Obama knew Rezko was trying to extract an official favor from him.

barfo

Obviously, if the Republicans thought they had a case against Obama under existing Illinois law, they would have filed it by now. That said, are you really saying that you don't have any concerns about Obama taking favors from a sleazeball slumlord like Rezko? Do you really believe that Rezko bought a lot that he had no use for but which helped a young Illinois legislator get a house he couldn't otherwise afford just because they were buds; no quid pro quo expected in the future?

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems like that argument applies to both sides of the aisle. Just as you don't see the people who supported Clinton supporting Palin, I don't see the people who were denouncing Clinton denouncing Palin, either.

barfo

There's nothing to denounce Palin for.

 

[barfo]

Obama received $1M in benefits directly from Rezko.

Here's an article from Obama's home town paper:

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in that article the $1M in benefits to Obama from Rezko.

So the link is that Obama supported a Rezko project in 1998, and seven years later, Rezko paid him back by selling him a strip of land next to his house. Possible, I guess. Usually when you buy a politician you pay him upfront, but maybe Obama was willing to wait seven years to be paid?

barfo

 

[barfo]

There's nothing to denounce Palin for.

I see.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in that article the $1M in benefits to Obama from Rezko.

So the link is that Obama supported a Rezko project in 1998, and seven years later, Rezko paid him back by selling him a strip of land next to his house. Possible, I guess. Usually when you buy a politician you pay him upfront, but maybe Obama was willing to wait seven years to be paid?

barfo

Are you ignoring the paragraphs about how Davis and Rezko funded his campaigns to become state senator (and then senator and presidential campaign)? Seems so.

EDIT:

Since announcing his presidential bid, Obama has faced repeated questions about his 17-year relationship with Rezko, one of his earliest political contributors, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama. Rezko backed Obama's election to the Illinois Senate in 1996, his successful re-election bids and his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate.