Blatant lies

[Denny Crane]

Nope. An opportunity to buy is what Rezko gave him. An opportunity is not "material." The land and house are material, which Obama paid for.

Nope. He bought $400K worth of Obama's property for Obama's benefit and not his own.

 

[Minstrel]

Nope. He bought $400K worth of Obama's property for Obama's benefit and not his own.

And doing so gave Obama the opportunity to purchase his own property. Opportunity is not material. I'm glad we agree that Obama received no material benefit.

Rezko kept the property he bought.

 

[Denny Crane]

And doing so gave Obama the opportunity to purchase his own property. Opportunity is not material. I'm glad we agree that Obama received no material benefit.

Rezko kept the property he bought.

Rezko wrote off the property he bought, since he's a land developer. Take Rezko out of the picture and what happens to Obama?

Proof he received material benefit.

 

[Minstrel]

Rezko wrote off the property he bought, since he's a land developer. Take Rezko out of the picture and what happens to Obama?

Proof he received material benefit.

Doesn't prove anything of the sort. You're agreeing with me. He created the opportunity for Obama to purcahse property for himself. No Rezko, no opportunity.

And opprtunity, as we know, is not material.

But we're just going back and forth. Feel free to reinforce what I said one more time while insisting I'm wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

Doesn't prove anything of the sort. You're agreeing with me. He created the opportunity for Obama to purcahse property for himself. No Rezko, no opportunity.

And opprtunity, as we know, is not material.

But we're just going back and forth. Feel free to reinforce what I said one more time while insisting I'm wrong.

You are using semantics to avoid the truth. Nice try, but it isn't working.

No Rezko, no material benefit as evidenced by Obama not having his house.

EDIT: It was literally an interest free loan with no payback term. Rezko wrote a real check for $400K for no benefit to himself but the letters Obama wrote on his behalf that netted him $14M+ in govt. deals.

 

[maxiep]

Fair enough, but that still misses my point. I'll retract that the Rezkos "retained the value" if in fact that land is worthless without development. But my point was that it was not a $400K gift to the Obamas, which your point doesn't contradict in the least. Whether or not the Rezkos "lost" that value, the value wasn't transferred to Obama. He didn't receive $400K in cash or value. That value was simply let lie fallow. Perhaps with the understanding that Obama would eventually buy some or all of it, but still certainly no "$400K gift."

The Rezcos paid full price for a piece of land and the Obama's paid $300K less than the asking price for the house. Given that the house represented a little over 72% of the total transaction, the imputed discount transfer from Rezco to Obama was almost $83K. Of course, Chicago politics is so corrupt, this kind of thing barely raises an eyebrow.

It's certainly a questionable move by a politician (due to how it looks) but, unlike Palin, there's no actual evidence of abuse. It may have been influence-selling, or it may have been the profoundly typical phenomenon among the social/financial elite of making use of connections. Politician or not, those with connections have a lot more options available. Rezko may have done Obama a personal favour for which he expected the possibility of a personal favour in return someday, not a political favour. I'm in no way suggesting that that's definitely true, but it is just as likely since it happens all the time outside the political arena. And such a thing would not be an ethics violation. Obama is allowed to accept and do favours that aren't related to exercise of his political power.

The Palins made phone calls that resulted in the guy they wanted gone not getting fired. Obama was able to afford a house he couldn't have otherwise purchased. It boggles my mind as to why you think the Palin's infraction was worse.

 

[barfo]

The Palins made phone calls that resulted in the guy they wanted gone not getting fired. Obama was able to afford a house he couldn't have otherwise purchased. It boggles my mind as to why you think the Palin's infraction was worse.

Buying a house that you want is a sensible goal. Getting your ex-brother-in-law fired is a stupid, petty goal.
Palin's infraction is worse because of what it reveals about her. And failing to achieve a stupid, petty goal due to incompetence and overreaching reveals something more.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Buying a house that you want is a sensible goal. Getting your ex-brother-in-law fired is a stupid, petty goal.
Palin's infraction is worse because of what it reveals about her. And failing to achieve a stupid, petty goal due to incompetence and overreaching reveals something more.

barfo

Sweet. I want a new house. Send me $83K.

Your post about what you think is worse--political graft vs. firing a suboordinate--tells me a ton about you.

 

[barfo]

Sweet. I want a new house. Send me $83K.

Your post about what you think is worse--political graft vs. firing a suboordinate--tells me a ton about you.

You know as well as I do it wasn't about firing a subordinate.
As for my post, if I didn't want you to know that, I wouldn't have posted it here.
Whenever I have $83K that I don't want, I will send it to you.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You know as well as I do it wasn't about firing a subordinate.
As for my post, if I didn't want you to know that, I wouldn't have posted it here.
Whenever I have $83K that I don't want, I will send it to you.

barfo

If you ever have an extra $.02, I'll take it

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If you ever have an extra $.02, I'll take it

I'll give you my $.02 . . . the Blazers will be a force in the NBA this year.

 

[maxiep]

You know as well as I do it wasn't about firing a subordinate.

Sure it was. He served at the pleasure of the Governor.

As for my post, if I didn't want you to know that, I wouldn't have posted it here.

I always appreciate it when people reveal their stupidity. This was political graft of the worst order. How that is somehow better than making a couple of phone calls and then firing someone who you have every right to do is beyond me.

Whenever I have $83K that I don't want, I will send it to you.

barfo

Great. When I'm in a position to send you millions as part of my role in the public trust, I'll pay you back tenfold with the people's money. I'm glad we understand how the system works in Chicago.

 

[Denny Crane]

Great. When I'm in a position to send you millions as part of my role in the public trust, I'll pay you back tenfold with the people's money. I'm glad we understand how the system works in Chicago.

I worked for a law firm in Chicago for a year. I was sent to City Hall almost every day to file papers of one sort or another...

I'd often stand in a line of 50 people waiting for the guy behind the window to deal with the people in front of me. One window open, 5 closed. 5 guys playing cards behind the counter. Literally.

It's called patronage.

True story, too.

 

[barfo]

Sure it was. He served at the pleasure of the Governor.

Yes. That's why it wasn't about that.

I always appreciate it when people reveal their stupidity. This was political graft of the worst order.

Really? The worst order?

How that is somehow better than making a couple of phone calls and then firing someone who you have every right to do is beyond me.

Clearly.

Great. When I'm in a position to send you millions as part of my role in the public trust, I'll pay you back tenfold with the people's money. I'm glad we understand how the system works in Chicago.

I'll watch the mail carefully.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Rezko wrote off the property he bought, since he's a land developer. Take Rezko out of the picture and what happens to Obama?

Proof he received material benefit.

Actually, it turns out this isn't true. Rezko is not just sitting on an unusable chunk of land, as has been alleged in this thread. Rezko sold the lot at a profit in 2007.

When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

barfo

 

[barfo]

As someone who both works in real estate and who was a former resident of Kenwood/Hyde Park, I have to say your statement is profoundly ignorant. The property only had value if it were developed, which it was not. In fact, it was used as the Obama family's yard. Given the RE boom in that area, it remained one of the few open lots that was never developed nor even put on the market. When the Rezcos sold a slice of the property to the Obamas to try to stem any further investigation, it served to make the Rezcos lot too small to develop, thereby making it worthless.

Bzzt. Sold at a profit in 2007 = not worthless.

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

There's a reason why Tony Rezko isn't involved in any of McCain's campaign smears. Its because no one give two shits about it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, it turns out this isn't true. Rezko is not just sitting on an unusable chunk of land, as has been alleged in this thread. Rezko sold the lot at a profit in 2007.



barfo

You're working awfully hard at this.

You can write off a 1st and 2nd property mortgage interest. If you are a land/property developer, you can write off all the land payments.

It was still an interest free loan with no payment ever due.

Care to try again?

 

[barfo]

You're working awfully hard at this.

I'm certainly not working any harder than you at it. I read a lot of political news, and I happened to come across something about this. Thought I'd share, since it directly contradicted something that was claimed here. Seems a bit odd that you want to suggest that's an inappropriate use of my time.

You can write off a 1st and 2nd property mortgage interest. If you are a land/property developer, you can write off all the land payments.

It was still an interest free loan with no payment ever due.

Care to try again?

That doesn't make any sense to me. It might make sense, but I don't know what you are trying to say.
Interest free loan from who to who?

Anyway, it was a posting error that I responded to you anyway. I was looking for maxiep's message but
couldn't find it, so I used yours as a stand-in. Then a few minutes later I found his and quoted it. It was really his claim that the land was worthless after being divided that I wanted to respond to.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It was an interest free loan from Rezko to Obama of $400K to help Obama buy both parcels.

The deal represents an equity share arrangement.

http://www.homeequityshare.com/how-it-works/

 

[barfo]

It was an interest free loan from Rezko to Obama of $400K to help Obama buy both parcels.

The deal represents an equity share arrangement.

http://www.homeequityshare.com/how-it-works/

I think that's a big stretch. They certainly could have concluded such a deal, but the paperwork apparently says they didn't. Obama certainly didn't buy both parcels, as you assert, since Rezko eventually sold the other lot (and presumably kept the money from the sale himself).

It's just as reasonable to infer that Obama pointed him to the property, said, hey, I know you are looking for investments, here's some land you could buy. Rezko is a developer, he wants to buy land. Obama wants to buy the house. The seller wants to sell both properties. Everyone wins.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think that's a big stretch. They certainly could have concluded such a deal, but the paperwork apparently says they didn't. Obama certainly didn't buy both parcels, as you assert, since Rezko eventually sold the other lot (and presumably kept the money from the sale himself).

It's just as reasonable to infer that Obama pointed him to the property, said, hey, I know you are looking for investments, here's some land you could buy. Rezko is a developer, he wants to buy land. Obama wants to buy the house. The seller wants to sell both properties. Everyone wins.

barfo

Take Rezko and his $400K out of the equation and tell me what it looks like.

 

[barfo]

Take Rezko and his $400K out of the equation and tell me what it looks like.

It looks like the deal doesn't get done. But that hardly proves malfeasance. Having 3 parties in a deal doesn't make it corrupt.

barfo

 

[barfo]

One can imagine that Obama and Rezko both acted in their own real estate self interests in this deal. If Rezko was in the business of buying empty lots for development, this lot was available to him only because of Obama, just as the house was only available to Obama because of Rezko. The seller's wish to sell both at once meant that a homeowner and a lot owner needed to be paired up.

If we assume that Rezko had no interest in buying the lot, then he was just doing Obama a big favor. But it is plausible that Rezko actually was interested in the lot (and indeed, he should have been - he ended up making a profit on the land), in which case they both acted in their own self-interest, and neither owes the other anything.

I'm not saying it went down like that, none of us know. But it isn't any slam dunk corruption case unless you can prove the scenario I'm laying out didn't happen.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I've seen enough spinning. Why guess at what Obama did, when it's a matter of the public record?

Oh, and it's $650K, not $400K as I've been stating. My bad.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake


November 5, 2006


<!-- Article By Line --> BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND CHRIS FUSCO Staff Reporters Contributing: Mark Brown
<!-- Article's First Paragraph --> <!-- BlogBurst ContentStart --> U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard.

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in an exclusive and revealing question-and-answer exchange about the transaction.

In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.
<!-- Fact box starts here -->
<!-- BlogBurst ContentStart --> Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him.

In the Sun-Times interview, Obama acknowledged approaching Rezko about the two properties being up for sale and that Rezko developed an immediate interest. Obama did not explain why he reached out to Rezko given the developer's growing problems.

Last month, Rezko was indicted for his role in an alleged pay-to-play scheme designed to fatten Gov. Blagojevich's political fund. Rezko also was accused of bilking a creditor.

"With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said.

The land deal came up in a court hearing Friday that delved into Rezko's finances. Obama said he has not been approached by federal prosecutors about the transaction nor has plans to go to them about it.

Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund.

After the controversy surfaced on Wednesday, the Sun-Times presented Obama's office with a lengthy set of questions about the land deal, Obama's relationship with Rezko and the story's impact on a potential 2008 bid for the White House.

Here are his responses:

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

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

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

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

A: No.

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

A: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: No.

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

A: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: He hosted one event at his home in 2003 for my U.S. Senate campaign. He participated as a member of a host committee for several other events. My best estimate was that he raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000.

 

[barfo]

I've seen enough spinning. Why guess at what Obama did, when it's a matter of the public record?

Well, ok. If you accept Obama's account (which fits pretty well with the theory I just put forward) that there was nothing unethical, but that he regrets it because it looks bad, then we've got no disagreements.

barfo