Apparently there is a new plot twist in the Obama-Rezko saga:
A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama.
In a complaint filed Thursday in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Kenneth J. Connor said that his reappraisal of Rita Rezko's property was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document.
...
According to the complaint, Mr. Connor reviewed the appraisal of the Rezko property by another firm, Adams Appraisal, which had set the value at $625,000. Mr. Connor's complaint said that he told his bosses in a report that the property had been overvalued by at least $125,000 and that a "reasonable and fair evaluation" should have been no greater than $500,000.
Later, the complaint states, Mr. Connor observed that his lower appraisal was not in the Rezko file and that he notified his supervisors that it had been replaced. He said, according to the complaint, the new file had been reviewed by the FBI and "if the FBI were to ask me about such matters, I would tell them the truth. I never rescinded my original findings."
Critics of Mr. Obama's dealings with Rezko charge that the senator may have gotten a deal on his property purchase, noting that Mrs. Rezko paid the full asking price for her property on an adjacent lot. Both of which were sold by a single seller. Mr. Obama bought his house for $1.65 million - $300,000 below the asking price.
When the property was sold, Mr. Obama knew Rezko was under investigation on fraud charges.
The complaint said the Rezko loan was approved by Mutual Bank President and CEO Amrish Mahajan and others so that Mrs. Rezko could buy a 9,090-square-foot vacant parcel of real estate. It said that in January 2006, Mrs. Rezko and Mr. Obama, along with his wife Michelle, signed an agreement to sell a 10-foot strip of the property to the Obamas. At that point, according to the complaint, Mr. Connor's firm asked him to conduct the reappraisal.
The complaint said Mr. Connor is seeking $4.2 million for compensatory damages, plus unspecified punitive damages.
So the controversial re-appraisal occurred when the Rezkos sold a 10 foot wide strip of land to the Obamas, and the original appraisal put a lower value on the property.
Well. If the Rezkos sold that strip of property at a sweetheart low price, having the bank come back with a high appraisal would not be what they want, at least as far as minimizing embarrassment to the Obamas is concerned. Of course, a higher appraisal might allow the Rezkos take some cash out in a refinancing, but that has nothing to do with the Obamas.
And I suppose that if the Obamas were financing the purchase of the 10 foot strip that a higher appraisal would be helpful for that, but in that scenario surely the reappraisal would have been done on their entire new and improved property, not the Rezko lot? I don't care how much of a real estate bubble we are talking about, no one was getting separate financing for a ten foot strip of land connected to their main property.
I am straining to see the scandal here. And a bonus thought (say it with me) - Obama is our President - Suck it up. I'll get behind a real scandal if need be, but this isn't it.
FOREST V. TREES In other news, Drudge offers my old buddy Patrick Fitzgerald a Merry Fitzmas and links to reports of a Senate seat for sale by the Illinois Governor. Marc Ambinder and Ben Smith have fascinating details about this trip down shakedown street.
And I would say he is of a very different temperament, but NY Governor David Patterson also has a Senate seat available. Something for someone to keep an eye on.
"Obama is our President - Suck it up. I'll get behind a real scandal if need be, but this isn't it."
Sorry Tom, not onboard with that statement. Just because Obama got elected doesn't mean he has to be off the hook on all his crooked dealings in the past. Your cavalier attitude is nice, but if the shoe was on the other foot the Democrats would be pursuing every angle. The Rezko-Obama deal stinks to high heaven, and the whole Illinois Democratic establishment of which Obama is part of stinks too. Your theory that Obama now gets a pass because he is President elect is too surreal to entertain.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Couldn't the increased evaluation have amounted to a payoff for Rita Rezko? Does the increased Valuation make it look like Obama got less of a sweatheart deal on his part of the bargain??? After all, $300,000 off is quite a bit less than $450,000 off.
I dunno, why would a guy get fired over it if it wasn't important?
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 12:52 PM
There are just way too many of these little mini controversies surrounding Obama. One of them is going to bite him.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The Chicago House of Cards...
Posted by: PDinDetroit | December 09, 2008 at 01:06 PM
A senator recommends that the city give Rezko contracts for apartments which makes him lots of money, Rezko agrees to buy empty lot next to house of Senator, people who were selling house claimed they wanted to sell both the house and the lot at once so that was great for Obama, a relative of Saddam wires Rezko's wife money to complete transaction, the Senator and his wife get to move into their new fancy home, Senator proceeds to recommend contracts from city for Rezko, the salary for his wife triples after he is elected Senator, he proceeds to get millions for her employer - I could could on but I will just stop here.
Do you really not see the "scandal" in any of this? Has our country become so immoral and corrupt that we're immune to immoral behavior now? What exactly does a politician have to do for you to consider it a "scandal?"
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 01:11 PM
What exactly does a politician have to do for you to consider it a "scandal?"
Be a Republican.
Posted by: DrJ | December 09, 2008 at 01:13 PM
That's how I see it.
Rezko paid the full price on the unusable lot so Obama could pay less for his house (and still get the land next to it).
Then Obama wanted a strip of the land and the two of them had the lot appraised to set the price. If the value of the land is too low, it makes the original deal look even worse. So they need an appraisal to make the lot look really valuable.
Then the Rezkos turned around and sold the rest of the unusable lot to their attorney for a profit, and he has listed the unusable lot at an even higher price. So nobody can buy it.
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Do you really not see the "scandal" in any of this? Has our country become so immoral and corrupt that we're immune to immoral behavior now?
I take it you don't remember the Clintoon administration?
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 01:28 PM
At least this time Fitz appears to have an actual crime to prosecute, but with every grandstanding press conference he proves he is not the kind of person to be entrusted with power.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 09, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I always thought the association with Rezko is more serious than anyone realizes - it's not just this either. The FBI was watching him for years and they noticed Obama going into his office on a daily basis, he took many trips to Syria over the years, he was associated with Auchi, he "recruited" Obama so that he moved to Chicago - there are so many things about both of them that people should be worried about.
I believe Obama and people on his campaign know this and it's why they want to keep the BC issue in the news - it distracts people from thinking about anything else.
But it doesn't matter anyway - Obama can do anything he wants and nobody is allowed to criticize him. He is black and only racists would criticize him. We all know that.
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 01:41 PM
The grasping at straws here in the comment section is pretty amusing. I'm sure all of you people who are complaining about the rezko property deal (for which Obama was the highest bidder) were just as concerned when bush was bringing our country to the brink of disaster in almost every area (torture, rendition, spying, katrina, galveston, politicized justice dept., war based on lies, 911, stolen elections, 2 recessions etc.) Do the words double standard have any meaning for you?
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Is it clear whether we're talking about actually financing a mortgage here -- as opposed to taking out a loan?
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2008 at 01:43 PM
"Do the words double standard have any meaning for you?"
Surely you jest. We've been watching the Democrats for years. Does "fact versus fancy" mean anything to you?
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2008 at 01:50 PM
(for which Obama was the highest bidder)
There was an Auction? I take it "rewriting history" doesn't have any meaning to you.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Do the words double standard have any meaning for you?
The question should be answered by someone trying hard to make it "my guy isn't as bad as your guy" instead of "my guy did nothing wrong".
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 01:52 PM
"Obama is our President - Suck it up. I'll get behind a real scandal if need be, but this isn't it."
The entire country knew Obama was corrupt, just as they knew Clinton was corrupt, when they elected him. I hope we don't spend the next few years trying to impeach him. Corruption charges only stick to republicans. We need to concentrate on beating him at the ballot box.
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 01:58 PM
from the link:
The appraisal was not for a mortgage. It was to determine how much the Obamas should pay for the strip of land they wanted to parcel off the whole Rezko lot. Remember the Obamas actually paid more than they had to, so it would all look above board.
But...if the appraisal had come in too low, the original land deal would have looked even worse.
Whatever the Obamas paid for the strip, it was hundreds of thousands less than they would have had to pay for the whole lot.
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 02:01 PM
I'm not a Republican, I think Bush was a horrible President, I didn't support his policies, I live in the most liberal city in the country.
But I'm not fooled by most politicians and I will criticize them if they're corrupt - I criticize Republicans, Democrats, white people, black people. Everyone is treated the same.
This discussion is about Obama - not Bush, not Republicans, not terrorism, not the economy.
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Aggressive interrogation works fine, under proper limits. Rendition was good too, there's really no ACLU to complain about in Damascus, and Cairo; but they're mean bastards about it. Katrina, is the midpoint scenario of a corrupt city that's already below sea level; although Cao, Jindal & Co. are doing their best to improve it. The rest is just too silly to comment on;bgates you need a stronger filter here, troll cleanup aisle three. Maybe they'll have to crack that glass case again to get Biden out.
Posted by: narciso | December 09, 2008 at 02:02 PM
Glad to see others have not drunk the Obama Koolaid. The odds that Obama emerged clean as whistle from the political cesspool in Chicago that produced him are very long indeed.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:02 PM
Speaking of double standards, anyone see the name of Blag's party in the NYT' piece?
It is interesting to speculate on what basis Fitz was able to get Ct permission to wiretap. Who's talked/worn a wire?
Steve Gilbert gives a little reminder of how close SEIU (ACORN by another name) is to The One:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-and-the-highly-corrupt-seiu
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Sue- I don't want the papers to spend their time trying to de-legitimize Obama. Nor do I want one word about impeaching him to be raised. I completely agree with that.
I do want to feel free to talk about his problems online. I'm not involved in a grassroots movement to oust him, I just want to discuss his issues.
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Rezko bumps up his portion of the property by $125,000 while Obama et al get $300,000 off from the asking.
Semms like the previous owner gave up $175,000 while Rezko chipped in $125,000 so Obama et al could get the savings of $300,000.
It certainly seems like the "Chicago Way" to me.
Posted by: Neo | December 09, 2008 at 02:04 PM
I take it "rewriting history" doesn't have any meaning to you.
Po, after looking at that laundry list of lunacy, I don't think anything with a factual basis has any meaning to that troll du jour.
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 09, 2008 at 02:05 PM
(for which Obama was the highest bidder)
People charged with corruption often are the highest bidder, yes. Especially if they are bidding with illegal money, or influence.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Charlie's right, Obama has yet to appoint a single US Attorney or (ask Congress to) declare a single war, or...control the weather, I guess...in his entire 143 days in the Senate or his career in Illinois.
He has stolen elections, though, unlike Bush, and he and his party have brought on the current recession, unlike Bush, and there's every possibility he's going to continue the Clinton administration's rendition policy.
Posted by: bgates | December 09, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Firedoglake is reporting that Fox Chicago is saying it was Rahm that turned Blago into the Feds.
So is Rahm super ethical? Or did he see a chance to take out someone that was causing them problems?
Is Blago delusional, or did he have reason to believe the people surrounding Obama are willing to use money and favors to get political positions?
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 02:06 PM
MayBee,
I too will spend time discussing his "problems". I meant "we" in the royal sense. Or more particularly, republicans in congress.
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Corruption charges only stick to republicans. We need to concentrate on beating him at the ballot box.
Do you see the problem with that formulation?
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Po,
Finding non-corruptible republicans would be a fine start. ::sigh::
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Finding non-corruptible republicans would be a fine start. ::sigh::
First of all, it's probably not gonna happen, unless you find Saints to run, then, who's gonna elect em?
Second of all, given the current playing field, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 02:11 PM
"Funny Money: How Barack Obama Bought the White House for $668 Million"
Barack Obama and his team smashed all fundraising records on the way to victory, raking in a staggering $668 million. But some of that all-important cash came from questionable — even make-believe — sources.
An intensive Newsmax investigation by investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman — cited in a complaint by the Republican National Committee — uncovered numerous instances of questionable and even illegal donations.
The Newsmax special report uncovered evidence that that Obama campaign raked in millions by allowing donors to exceed legal limits. Millions more flowed into his coffers from unidentifiable sources, including prohibited financial support from foreign nationals.
And, astoundingly, nearly half of his total campaign contributions, over $300 million, came from donors under $200 — donor names Obama still won't release for public scrutiny.
Newsmax magazine's special report "Funny Money: How Barack Obama Bought the White House for $668 Million" offers an in-depth look at the questions surrounding the fundraising efforts that have forever changed American politics.
The new edition of Newsmax magazine is hitting newsstands across the country, including many Barnes & Noble, Hastings, Follett, B.Dalton, Books-A-Million, Joseph Beth and other major bookstores, as well as Publix, Meijer, Kroger's, Wegman's, and Harris Teeter supermarkets, Hudson News and Host airport newsstands, and Sam's Club stores.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:11 PM
"So is Rahm super ethical? Or did he see a chance to take out someone that was causing them problems?"
Causing "them" problems? As in Bambi knows nothing?
Oh wait - that's right. Bambi has The Vision, and all the super-ethical foot soldiers do the grunt work so Bambi stays clean.
My bad - I forgot how the newly changed government works...
Posted by: Enlightened | December 09, 2008 at 02:13 PM
I'd prefer we find effective conservatives to run.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 09, 2008 at 02:13 PM
There seems to be a split among Republicans/Conservatives, where some people think that continuing to "hound" Obama serves no purpose. I ask those who want to accept Obama and give him a free pass what exactly has changed about him since becoming President-elect. Is he more experienced, more capable? Has his record changed? Is he less corrupt, has his relationships with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, etc. become irrelevant now the election is over? Have his policies become more palatable? The idea that Obama needs to be seen in a more positive light because he won does not make sense to me.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:14 PM
MayBee - actually, I thought Fitz strongly hinted at his news conference that someone (like say, Rahm) had said something to the effect, "boy, do I," when asked if they knew anything.
I suspect Rahm, as a "skilled" politics player, knows when to distance himself and his team from a loser about to be in hot legal water.
Posted by: centralcal | December 09, 2008 at 02:16 PM
"Obama is our President - Suck it up."
Oh no he isn't! We've got more than a month till the sucking starts.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2008 at 02:17 PM
Not pressing Democrats on their corruption is only part of a successful strategy. We also need to never deny charges against us. Admit guilt for anything we're accused of while standing up for our opponents' character. That's what we need to do.
Posted by: bgates | December 09, 2008 at 02:17 PM
"torture, rendition, spying, katrina, galveston,politicized justice dept., war based on lies, 911, stolen elections, 2 recessions etc."
Hold it right there Chucky Chops. That's one hell of a mish mash of conflation.Now go away and rewrite this showing you reasons,and ditch the "etc",it won't stand up in court.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Clarice,
If you scroll through the indictment, it looks like Fitzgerald got permission to put bugs in the campaign offices and on Blago's home phone at the end of October.*
The indictment (actually the attached FBI affidavit) notes that Rezko began offering proffers around that time.
Fun times to come. Fun times.
----------
*They got all that from his home phone. Imagine what they would have picked up with cell or office intercepts.
Posted by: Walter | December 09, 2008 at 02:19 PM
I may not have the facts right. Here is what I have gleaned from your story. Obama and Rezko bought adjoining properties from the same buyer at roughly the same time. The allegation is that Rezko overpaid so that Obama could underpay. Later, Obama bought a 10,000 sf strip from Rezkos 10,000sf parcel. The allegation is that Rezko sought a high appraisal. Why, you ask, would a high appraisal be useful?
If Rezko wanted to refinance his parcel and take money out he would like it to have a higher value. One way to do that is to sell a tiny piece at a high value per sf and then say the sale proves that the whole piece is worth the high value per sf. So, sell 10% of it to a friend, at a high price. An appraiser steps in and says, "Yes, i agree the whole piece is worth that much on a per sf basis". Now you can overstate the value on the other 90%. Your friend essentially spent $1 to make $9 for you.
It's basic.
Posted by: d'd'd'docile dave | December 09, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Here's the deal on why the appraisal matters:
The seller had 2 lots for sale. He wanted a total of $XX dollars for the 2 lots. Ordinarily adjacent properties would have roughly equal value, so Rezko would pay half and the Obamas would pay half of the $XX dollars.
But Rezko wanted a favor from Obama so he overpaid for his property so that Obama could underpay for his. The total of the two amounts equaled $XX dollars, but Rezko shouldered the additional amount in order to give what amounts to a bribe to Obama in the amount of the price differential.
Here's where the appraisal comes in. In order to justify the higher loan amount to Rezko, the bank had to have an appraisal for his property that justified the fact that Rezko had to borrow the additional money in order to make the bribe. So the bank just pulled a switcheroo: swapping out the actual appraisal for one which more closely matched the amount of money they actually loaned Rezko.
It's all pretty straightforward: Rezko is able to give Obama a huge bribe without creating a paper trail of bank deposits. Obama has deniability by claiming he got a "deal" on his property - which he absolutely did. He's just leaving out the part about how he got that deal, and why he should be really scared if one of those bank employees decides they'd rather sing than do time to continue the cover-up.
Posted by: Jim B | December 09, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Just to be perfectly clear, Obama's feet need to be held to the fire. His entire presidency. I just don't want to go down the path republicans went down with Clinton. His womanizing, his corruption, his shady character, was well known to the public, especially by the time he was up for re-election. I think republicans will be more effective going after Obama on his lack of experience, policy, etc., rather than chasing a fox we all know is running in front of the hounds.
My point is, the fox became the sympathetic figure because the hounds continued to nip at his heels. I hope we don't make that mistake again.
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 02:20 PM
"I suspect Rahm, as a "skilled" politics player, knows when to distance himself and his team from a loser about to be in hot legal water."
Could be too late, you can't create a clean slate in Chicago politics overnight. And Blago seems like an impulsive guy, he might be willing to take some people down with him if he thinks they are disloyal. He might not be a Susan McDougal.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:21 PM
"The idea that Obama needs to be seen in a more positive light because he won does not make sense to me"
I think they are afraid that if we criticize overly much, then we become the OBS'ers as opposed to BDS'ers. Some conservatives think we will win over the populace with mere kindness. I disagree - that mentality is admirable, but naive in light of the thug mentality surrounding Bambi and his minions.
Posted by: Enlightened | December 09, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Ordinarily adjacent properties would have roughly equal value
In this case one property was larger.
The one with the house on it.
Posted by: bgates | December 09, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Rahm Emmanuel is a hero for pushing a US Attorney to arrest a politician.
Domenici, not so much.
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Charlie Chocks -- you truly are moronic.
Today Frank Raines --friend of Bill and Hil, friend of Barry-- he who fraudulently reported earnings at Fannie Mae to secure tens of millions of dollars orders in bonuses for himself and other Fannie players like Jamie "FBI/CIA Wall Gorelnick" orders of magnitude worse than Enron and got off with a resignation and Fannie paying a civil SEC fine, submitted written testimony blaming thE Fannie/Freddie moRtgage debacle on the regulators and Congress not stopping him. This is beyond imagination, much less belief. He stole millions, steered Fannie on a course that made taxpayers liable for mortgage losses totalling hundreds of billions (instead of tens of Billions) and it was everyone else's fault for not stopping him. WHY IS THIS MAN AND GORELNICK AND JOHNSON NOT IN PRISON!
Posted by: NK | December 09, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Sue,jhm, etc.
I don't mind discussing Obama's problems. I think there is plenty to talk about in that regard. I'm just not as interested in his trips to syria or his birth certificate as some of you seem to be. Obama'a real estate agent negatiated the deal which is what I meant by him being the highest "bidder". If you need more info on any of that you can go here, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
If you think that Bush was a good president who had a respect for the constitution and left our country in better shape than when he got it, then you will find support in ths echo chamber. The majority of people in this country think he was an unmitigated disaster (lowest poll #s in the history of political polling). Maybe they are all wrong. LOL
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 02:24 PM
"I just don't want to go down the path republicans went down with Clinton."
Like impeaching him for lying under oath? Believe me if we had not gone after Clinton Al Gore would have been President.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:25 PM
For those of you who wouldn't otherwise read the 71-page pdf to which I linked, let me add as a teaser that it hints at Blago and Rahm discussions about filling Rahm's congressional seat.
Scroll way down. Or search for Presidential Advisor 1.
Posted by: Walter | December 09, 2008 at 02:26 PM
The story of how Barack Obama bought his house isn't the one most people make it out to be - he actually paid $222,000 more than it was actually worth (quote follows from the link):
The transaction tells us quite a bit about the quality of his judgment.
Posted by: Ironman | December 09, 2008 at 02:27 PM
I don't mind discussing Obama's problems.
Of course you don't. Which is why you launch back into a Bush is badder than "my guy".
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 02:27 PM
Oops, it should be:
"Later, Obama bought a 10 foot wide strip from Rezkos 9,000sf parcel." Same idea though.
Posted by: d'd'd'docile dave | December 09, 2008 at 02:27 PM
The higher appraisal is the one Rezko purchased the property with allowing Obama to pay $300,000 less for his home. without the higher appraisal Obama would have only got a $175,000 discount. Therin lies another corrupt act by a Chicago Politician.
Posted by: robtr | December 09, 2008 at 02:28 PM
The name calling doesn't help to elevated any of your arguments although it's not surprising.
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 02:28 PM
I do think bush is badder than my guy.
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 02:30 PM
I think they are afraid that if we criticize overly much, then we become the OBS'ers as opposed to BDS'ers.
If that happens, we're liable to end up with a President with a 28% approval rating and unable to move his legislative agenda, who loses control of Congress and turns the White House over to the other party when he leaves office.
I'm not calling for impeachment today, but not because I think any respect for the office or the election rubs off on the anti-American corrupt communist punk who won. He's dirty enough to do something impeachable, but clever enough he hasn't given us proof yet. When it comes, we should use it. In the meantime, build the groundwork by pointing out every questionable thing he's ever done.
That doesn't diminish the importance of reminding people that if he lives up to the rhetoric of his primary campaign he'll be the most disasterous chief executive on the North American continent since Montezuma.
Posted by: bgates | December 09, 2008 at 02:31 PM
ben,
Three years were spent chasing an impeachment against Clinton that left him leaving office with 65% approval ratings. If you mean Gore was afraid to use a president with 65% approval ratings because of the impeachment, then I guess you're right. The country is strange, in case it hasn't already been determined. A man who had done nothing but what he felt was the right thing to do has approval ratings in the gutter. A man who lied under oath leaves office smelling like a gutter but with approval ratings in the mid 60s. Strange indeed.
Posted by: Sue | December 09, 2008 at 02:32 PM
I agree totally, Ben.
Problem is, the media meme is already going out far and wide that Blago is "insane," or at the least mentally unstable. Now isn't that convenient? If he in any way incriminates Rahm or Axelrod or Zero, the story will be he is whacko nutso, not to be believed.
Posted by: centralcal | December 09, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Does "fact versus fancy" mean anything to you?
JMH
That is the best characterization of the world as we know it that I have ever seen.
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Pretty sure Rahm had ties to the Levine player, so getting in Fitzy's good graces is a plus.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 09, 2008 at 02:33 PM
Do not braid the laurels for Fitz yet--he shut this down well before the gig (and additional defendants) had run its course.
You know his M.O.--it's not much different this time..See, i.e., if andy stern is still walking around next week.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Charlie Chock Full of BS, Obama can't run against Bush anymore. I personally think Bush's legacy is and will be positive once the dust settles but it's irrelevant to the fact Obama is a product of a corrupt political machine that may or may not suck him in as these investigations proceed.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:36 PM
"I do think bush is badder than my guy"
Yeah that's right - Bush the Baddie has kept your empty melon safe for 7+ years so you can drink more swamprot and cry in near ectasy "Bambi Will Save Me"....
Good luck to you - here's hoping Bambi gets it right if another 3000 innocent Americans and Foreigners are slaughtered right here on American soil.
Because if he doesn't - you and the rest of the Obamatards are going to learn a very painful lesson.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt with the learning part.
Posted by: Enlightened | December 09, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Sue: I'm not sure about the women - after living in SF for years my skills in deciding if men are gay or not are excellent and I think both Obama and Emanuel prefer, I don't know how to put this politely, the "company" of other men.
This would explain why NOBODY has EVER met any woman Obama was involved with prior to his wife - of course some gay men have to get married if they want a political career.
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 02:41 PM
"Three years were spent chasing an impeachment against Clinton that left him leaving office with 65% approval ratings."
I disagree that the proceeding were a waste of time if that is what you think. First, the charges were real and true. If one of his Arkansas cronies like Hubbell or McDougal had told the truth he would have been history. Second, there is no doubt that Clinton was weakened and less effective getting his policies through than if he hadn't been impeached. And finally, most pundits agree that impeaching him kept Al Gore from being a slam dunk in the election.
Posted by: ben | December 09, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Look, Chuckie Poo, Bush's eight years are already the 'Good Old Days'.
======================================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 02:42 PM
"If you think that Bush was a good president who had a respect for the constitution and left our country in better shape than when he got it, then you will find support in ths echo chamber."
I suspect that Chucky Chops is the usual Bush basher that drops in from time to time.Just a subtle hint.
BUSH IS RETIRING ! Come February he's gone fishing.
Lets talk about the under boss from Chicago.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:43 PM
If he in any way incriminates Rahm or Axelrod or Zero, the story will be he is whacko nutso, not to be believed.
Nuts and sluts. Rahm was well trained.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 09, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Enlightened,
Bush did a great job of keeping us safe after Hurricane Katrina. That was a heck of a job. Oh yeah, and after he got the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" which detailed preperations being made to use planes as weapons against buildings in the United States, he stopped 911 from happening on his watch. Then, we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 911 or its initiators and let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. Makes me feel safer.
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 02:46 PM
So who is the Lt Governor of IL?
Posted by: Jane | December 09, 2008 at 02:46 PM
It would be interesting to know exactly when this purported tipoff occurred, wouldn't it c'cal? We have the election, and then the Rezko sentencing is scheduled -- much sooner than anyone thought it would be if Rezko were actually doing any singing.
Didn't Fitz delay some pending Plame revelation/action during the last election? Whether or not the timing was deliberate here, it sure would have been awkward if folks were dissecting a Revko wrap-up before the voting, instead of holding their collective breath to hear the tales Revko might be telling (but apparently wasn't).
Emauel gives Fitz a tip that nets him Blago (which kind of puts Rahm inside that Beltway, doesn't it?) and suddenly Rezko is not so important anymore. It's pretty clear that Fitz wanted Blago, not Obama in the first place, so what's not to like? If Rezko couldn't hand him that big fish, why press him for info that could slide both Fitz and Obama into a major swamp.
Hello dejá vu. There was a cloud over the White House, and clear skies at State. This time the weather has changed in Washington and Fitz is in Chicago.
Posted by: JM Hanes | December 09, 2008 at 02:46 PM
"he'll be the most disasterous chief executive on the North American continent since Montezuma."
Would that be "Balls up Montezuma"?
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:46 PM
Not pressing Democrats on their corruption is only part of a successful strategy. We also need to never deny charges against us. Admit guilt for anything we're accused of while standing up for our opponents' character. That's what we need to do.
Posted by: bgates
Yep, just ask Sen. McCain.
Posted by: Rickter | December 09, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Jane, the Lt Gov is Quinn Hot Air has the cite to his bio.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2008 at 02:49 PM
"let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora"
You know this for a fact Chucky,you have inside information?
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:49 PM
I think you guys are missing a major point here
the scandal is in the timing of the purchase
Rezko was known by everyone to be under investigation when the sale went down...even The One knew that
the sale was a way for Obama to help pay for Rezko's lawyers and minimize the stink on him
Posted by: Uncle Bouncy | December 09, 2008 at 02:50 PM
You're too smart for my wee old brain,jmh.
Posted by: clarice | December 09, 2008 at 02:52 PM
The trouble is Charlie, you've been lied to.
===========================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 02:52 PM
"Bush did a great job of keeping us safe after Hurricane Katrina"
Get real dipshit. Try that drivel on someone like Geraldo.
"Oh yeah, and after he got the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" which detailed preperations being made to use planes as weapons against buildings in the United States, he stopped 911 from happening on his watch."
Oh - so you are a Troofer - 'nuff said.
"Then, we went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 911 or its initiators and let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. Makes me feel safer."
I'm done with you you idiot - hearing this frikking swill ad nauseum is about as interesting as a piece of shit in a diarrhea pile....
Posted by: Enlightened | December 09, 2008 at 02:53 PM
"Later, Obama bought a 10 foot wide strip from Rezkos 9,000sf parcel." Same idea though."
The only reason Obama could buy such a small plot is because Rezko owned it.The corollary is Rezko bought the plot so Obama could buy the strip.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 02:53 PM
you have inside information?
Maybe he's part of the same sect of Islam that bin Laden and Obama follow.
Posted by: bgates | December 09, 2008 at 02:55 PM
I'm not sure what I think about Clinton anymore - he has been associating with some pathetic men lately but I also think it's possible his life isn't that great, not when you don't have someone close to you that you can talk to. He obviously has to stay with her for political reasons. He can't pursue a real relationship with anyone else.
But I don't understand how ANYONE could compare Obama to Clinton - Obama really doesn't seem that smart. I watched a video of him "roasting" his good friend Emanuel a few years ago and he could barely read the words that they prepared for him. Clinton was a brilliant Rhodes scholar, he worked at a law firm that actually did important cases, he submitted papers in college that we can read so we know he is brilliant and he seems to get a spark in his eyes when he interacts with other people, he really did seem to enjoy being around people - something is missing in Obama although most people don't see it. There is nothing behind those eyes - nothing. I just don't understand how anyone could compare them.
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Roger that. Run the fox down, grab it by the throat and shake it until it's dead, then bring it back and drop it at the feet of Sarah Palin.
Posted by: Soylent Red | December 09, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Enlightened, your unhinged name calling is pretty funny.
Petieuk, here's your "inside iformation" www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer
and by the way, we've all been lied to by our politicians and not just from one side of the aisle.
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Whoops. Last was RE sue's 1420 post.
Posted by: Soylent Red | December 09, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Charlie, listen up. Bush begged the authorities to evacuate New Orleans, everyone, including Joe Wilson, thought Saddam had WMD, and the Clinton Administration dropped the ball on bin Laden and tried to blame Bush. This is how the clear and objective sight of historians will see it, because it is true. Now about that propaganda habit you have; see someone about it. It can do you no good.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Who was asking about this (Fitzgerald on Obama's knowledge) :
“I’m not going to speak for what the President elect was aware of," he said. "We make no allegations that he’s aware of anything and that’s as simply as I can put it."
Fitzgerald is unwilling to allege a cloud over the office of the PEBO:
Posted by: MayBee | December 09, 2008 at 02:59 PM
And if you think the Obama Administration will stop NSA surveillance, you are even more ignorant than you sound.
====================================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 03:00 PM
"He obviously has to stay with her for political reasons. He can't pursue a real relationship with anyone else."
She has his balls locked in her dressing table drawer.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Chucko, give it up. If "A" -- or in this case "O" is tarnished, dissing "B" is irrelevant.
Stop it.
Posted by: sbwaters | December 09, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Chucky,Chucky,the WAPO is a newspaper,the journalists are as ignorant and as stupid as you.
The Tora Bora is an enormous,mountainous region.Nobody knows what is or is not there.
Posted by: PeterUK | December 09, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Looks bad, MayBee. Perhaps Blag will be so pissed he'll turn on Rahm and Obama. Watch Fitz get suddenly deaf.
======================================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Want to get wise, Charlie? Watch how the incoming administration used surveillance to destroy one of their own. Bush is already the 'Good Old Days'.
==================================
Posted by: kim | December 09, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Peter: I tried to put in a more "polite" way. But I actually think they are very close and care about each other - just not in that way anymore. He seems to have some issues - he wants a relationship with a smart woman he can talk to, but he wants a different kind of women in the bedroom, but this isn't about him anyway.
Now they're saying Emanuel is the person who told the FBI about the governor - of course Obama and Emanuel will make sure they come out of this looking like heros.
Posted by: nonetoday | December 09, 2008 at 03:09 PM
I actually don't think that O is going to give us NSA surveillance and that's on of the things that bothers me about him as does his related vote on FISA. He's not perfect by any stretch but this land deal doesn't have legs.
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 03:10 PM
sorry, that's give up nsa....
Posted by: charlie chocks | December 09, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Am I reading this story upside down? The high appraisal makes the Obama discount look bigger (since the price they paid hasn't changed.) A low appraisal makes their price look closer to 'reality'.
From nonetoday:
Fascinating, but old news, hashed out by our watchdog press before the election and investigated by Fitzgerald. My point was that I don't see how this new complaint about an inflated appraisal adds to the mix.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | December 09, 2008 at 03:11 PM
If the Zeros were ordinary folks who bought property at the height of the real estate bubble--their mortgage would be under water now.
I think Blag knew all that money left over from Zero's campaign needed to go someplace and he just wanted a piece of if.
Posted by: glasater | December 09, 2008 at 03:12 PM