Chicago Crime Update: No Appeal Bond for Conrad Black, Jury Will See Photos of Rezko's House

Two news items from Chicago today. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal bond for Conrad Black, while granting one to his two co-defendants. The British publishing magnate must report Monday to a federal prison in Coleman, Florida to start serving his 6 1/2 year sentence.

While the Court said there's a substantial issue on the fraud convictions (which, if decided in defendant's favor, likely would result in a reversal or new trial being granted) it found no such issue on Black's obstruction of justice conviction. The old coverup -- it gets you every time.

In the Anton Rezko trial which begins with jury selection Monday, the judge ruled today that photos of Rezko's mansion will come into evidence because it shows his opulent lifestyle and some of the alleged unlawful fundraising activity took place there.[More...]

Rezko, charged in a scheme to bribe and corrupt Illinois officials, held numerous fundraising events at his Wilmette mansion, including one for the 2004 senate campaign of Obama that raised more than $60,000.

Obama is not considered a target of the federal corruption investigation, and his campaign staff says any contribution tied to Rezko has since been donated to charity.

The Judges' ruling in Rezko is here (pdf).

For those who say this trial won't touch Obama because he did nothing wrong, it looks like while that should be the case (and I agree there's no indication Obama did anything improper or illegal) the media may not be willing to give him a publicity pass after all.

The ruling indicated that witnesses will testify about events that took place at Rezko's home, but it does not indicate whether the Obama fundraiser, held in June 2003, would be one of the events.

Several of Rezko's associates, also figure in the investigation, attended and contributed to Obama.

An earlier motion by prosecutors detailed two instances in which Rezko directed others to make campaign contributions to "a political candidate" who has since been identified by Chicago papers as Obama.

< New Texas Poll: It's Not Over Yet | Iraq: A Failure of Democratic Leadership >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the tide is turning (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Nasarius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    The story about Obama waffling on public financing is on the front page above the fold of the NYT today.

    Maybe it won't be as nasty as 2000 and 2004, but the chances are slim for favorable coverage.

    Too late - (none / 0) (#30)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    even if they are. No way to stop the Barack bandwagon from taking the nomination. I fear an onslaught of negative stories suddenly appearing then.

    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#36)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    Don't mind me I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we log out, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.


    I gave at the office. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:05:57 PM EST
    dont count your chickens before they hatch tho (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    cause Hillary might pull it out after all...NPR cited numbers tonite that she beats the GOP much larger numbers than Obama and no I don't have a link....

    Fine By Me (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:55:15 PM EST
    I am not a cultist.

    Let me guess (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    you named yourself squeaky because you're "squeaky clean"? :)

    Again, we'll know more once the trial starts, but the Chicago Tribune has said BO's name will come up in the trial.  So regardless of the context, it will not be good news for his campaign.

    With regard to my "venom," it's pretty clear Rezko fits the description of a slumlord--so I don't get why you are defending him.  And BO knew that there is such a thing (whether fair or not, as I said originally) as guilt by association because when it was brought up in the debate (AFTER he went after HRC about Walmart) because he referred to him as 'that gentleman' that said he only did 5 hours of work for him--when we all know he's had a personal relationship with him for nearly 20 years.    


    trial (none / 0) (#67)
    by bigbay on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:09:36 AM EST
    How can Dems nominate a guy who's former campaign finance chairman is going on trial the entire presidential cycle ? It'll be on the news every night.

    Does anyone know the timeline? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    Please correct any of this because I'm not sure about the chronology.
    Here is my understanding.  

    1. It was well known fact that Rezko was being investigated.  It was during this time that Obama contacted Rezko about the property that was on sale, the house and the lot next to it.  

    2. Obama buys the house for 300K less than the list price (houses are selling like hot cakes in 2005), and Rezko's wife buys the lot at full price so that both properties close at the same time.

    3. Rezko gets indicted and at that point Obama asks Rezko to sell a strip of the lot next to his house and Obama pays the proportionally based on the appraisal.

    4. Obama has given to charity (is there a total) the money Obama received as contribution from Rezko.

    If the chronology is right, why would Obama contact a person that is being investigated, to help him close the deal that meets the seller's stipulation that the two properties close at the same time.  I'm not a politician, and I would not have anything to do with someone who is being investigated.  Also, when one looks at the lot and the Obama's house, one can visually see that the house needs part of the lot for access.  Obama's purchase of the strip of land is really a required space that most houses would have.  The whole deal smells, even if "there are no indications" that there is something wrong.

    Obama calls it "a boneheaded mistake", I call it bad judgement.  I say that Obama's judgment gets clouded when his personal interest benefits.

    Those defending Obama will tell you (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
    The house and lot had been on the market for a while, there had been other offers, including by the Obamas, but they were all lower than the Obama offer the seller accepted.  

    Not sure when Ms. Rezko sold 1/6 of the lot to the Obamas in comparison with when her husband was indicted.

    Chicago Sun-Times alleges about $200,000 in campaign donations are attributable to Rezko's efforts.  Last I read was that Obama campaign had contributed about $168,000, and was working on tracing for additiona. such donations.  Mat have given more to charity since I last read about it, which was immed. after the NV caucuses.

    I think Obama acknowledged to one of the Chicago newspapers he mad a mistake in judgment re the house purchase with Ms. Rezko buying the adjoining lot.


    Help me here (none / 0) (#62)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:24:07 AM EST
    Oculus -- Is my understanding correct that when it was known that Rezko was being investigated, Obama contacted him about the house and the lot?

    It is interesting. A defender of Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
    at DK wrote a diary saying, basically, nothing to see here, but proceeded to lay out talking points.  He seemed to imply it was a mere coincidence Ms. Rezko ended up buying the lot on the same day the Obamas bought the property with the house on it.  When I asked the diarist if that's what he meant, he acknowledged the Obamas and Ms. Rezko worked together to accomplish the purchases.  Not sure who approached who first though.  I'm assuming the Obamas approached the Rezkos, since the Obamas wanted the house but couldn't swing buying the lot too. Rezko was definitely under investigation at the time.  

    Obama admitted contacting Rezko (none / 0) (#65)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:39:58 AM EST
    I just don't know when it became public knowledge that Rezko was being investigated.  The house deal closed June 2005.  The market was hot, and even if the house was on the market for 6 months, as Obama said, that is not unusual for an expensive property. People hold out to get the price they want.

    I thought Obama pretty much sd. that is (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:43:34 AM EST
    why it was a boneheaded mistake.  If Rezko hadn't been under criminal investigation, Obama would look a lot better here.

    Some deals have a bad smell (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST
    The Obama and Rezko deal beg the question:

    1. Why would Obama have any contact with someone who is being investigated.

    2. The two buyers, are connected because both sales had to close at the same time, hence there is co-ordination.

    3. Were the two properties listed with MLS (Multiple Listing Service) describing them as two independent sales and with the stipulation that the sale of both properties close at the same time? Why? I've heard it, but I've seen nothing that supports it, like the MLS listing.

    4. Has the broker been questioned on the deal by Fitzgerald.

    why ? (none / 0) (#68)
    by bigbay on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:11:31 AM EST
    They were friends. Obama knew this guy for 15 years. And yes, it's Chicago, he knew he was dirty.

    Nice digs. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:45:39 PM EST

    I love green tile roofs. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST

    No indication (none / 0) (#3)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    As Jeralyn fairly pointed out, there is no indication that Obama did anything improper or illegal.

    thank you so much (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:59:06 PM EST
    1jane, because we weren't clear on that.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#5)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    Kathy you never fail to make me laugh lol.....

    yea kathy... (none / 0) (#6)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    ... and you comment made things so much clearer and more substantial.

    thank you, mindful (none / 0) (#8)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    I have been watching you for pointers!

    There's a lot we won't know until the trial starts (none / 0) (#9)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    But the more people learn about what BO himself admitted was "boneheaded" (i.e. seeking the help of Rezko to buy his house even tough he was under federal investigation) does not help support BO's argument that he's a new kind of politician with superior judgement.  

    I think there might also be more to the house story because BO recently said Rezko toured the house with him, which is new information.  So it makes you wonder what else is there?  

    Also, the press overseas/UK has some real shady stories about Rezko, which also may not help BO if they turn out to be true or come out in this trial.  I know it's guilt by association, and while that may not, it's a political reality.        

    "Speaking only for me" (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:45:26 PM EST
    as BTD says--talking here as just a regular joe on the street, it smells mighty stinky that Rezko (allegedly) directed folks to donate money to Obama, then reimbursed said folks for their donations.  We are talking tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars.

    Why do this?  Did he just really, really like Obama?  Was he doing it as a favor to the governor, to whom he (allegedly) gave lists of people who should get government jobs?  Did he just think Obama was nice?

    These questions need an explanation.  The land deal...okay.  Boneheaded, I got ya, let's move on, whatever.  Why was Rezko funnelling this money into Obama's campaign coffers?


    He Gave Money To Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    Mostly in Ill where he did business. Obama was not a special case. Here is a list.

    Why? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:56:56 PM EST
    Why did he give tens of thousands of dollars to democrats like Obama?

    And gave money to Gore and Kerry (none / 0) (#21)
    by dannyinla on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    as well as numerous Republicans.

    How many of them did he help (none / 0) (#57)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:28:57 PM EST
    buy a mansion?

    How many of them wrote letters of support to city hall on his behalf?

    How many of them put Tony Rezko on their senatorial finance committee?

    How many of them gave highly prized internships to the children of the donors that Rezko directed to donate and then repaid?


    Look out for the Rethuggernaut landmines! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:10:10 PM EST
    This baby's set to blow in Nov.

    I'm not up on the details of this potential scandal and if this comment is OT, nuke it. However, joining the shorthand of

    Massachusetts Democrat (TAXES!)
    San Francisco Democrat (Teh GAY!!!)

    is Chicago Democrat (ELECTION FRAUD!!! ergo any dirty trick they use to "prevent" that is actually righteous.)

    Black Voters the Repugs Can't Disenfranchise will unfairly be registering and voting! To cast Votes they'd have to count in front of God and everyone!  How unfair! (If Obama goes all the way, this is what the ratf*ckers will be using to take him down.)

    The Rovian Rethuggernaut just keeps going to the same old cheat, deflect and smear playbook and adding the predictable thugging and depriving people of recourse.

    They're obvious and repetitive; lizard brained.

    "These people aren't very bright." [/Deep Throat in All the President's Men]

    Note that the cult smear didn't work. It's not dead yet but it didn't get traction. (If his following is enthralled as the wingnuts were with Bush after 9/11, their personal Republican money machine and govt toy, they're screwed.)

    The "leaked" photo: held hope of being that Dukakis in a tank moment or that Kerry hunting and Kerry windsurfing moment. (Didn't go anywhere.)

    This Rezko thing's supposed to be their "Whitewater" cudgel.

    Hope this isn't OT, but the gang that's out laying the landmines isn't being shy about it; IMO they WANT their supporters to know they're doing this to make the election close enough to steal again, or have enough croneys in place for a witch hunt should Obama get in.

    Damn the reception on this crystal ball. It just went all HBO=logo snow-globe on me.

    HRC's are in place from, well, the last 15 yrs.


    Really? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    does not help support BO's argument that he's a new kind of politician.....
    Compared to who? Bush never admits mistakes, even minor ones like Obama did.

    Sounds like a change to me. Where have you been for the last seven years?

    House (none / 0) (#11)
    by honora on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    I think that most Americans buy a house that they can afford. Or else they wait until they can.   It shows the arrogance to the Obamas that they would turn to Rezko (even if he were not under investigation) and get him to 'facilitate' the purchase.  It is silly to say that there is nothing there, Obama is bought and paid for by Rezko and probably many others.

    What? (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    Haven't you noticed that there is record debt in America, a sub-prime disaster?

    Most Americans will get as much as they can, not with respect to what they can afford. It is the American way.


    Oh come on (none / 0) (#23)
    by honora on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:04:57 PM EST
    Making a stupid financial decision is not the same thing as finding a sugar daddy to sell your soul to.  The desire to get more than you can afford is the same, but the two situations are light years apart.  

    umm... (none / 0) (#70)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    ... he could afford the house.  

    Rezko didn't help him afford the house.


    But BO couldn't afford the driveway (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    on the rest of the parcel, so the Rezkos bought that for the Obamas and then sold the driveway to them. Without it, the Obamas' house would lose a lot of value. And now sources conflict on whether what is left of the Rezkos' lot is buildable; the Obamas fence allows only them access, the new owner of the lot (another lawyer for Rezko) can't even get on the lot because Secret Service now blocks anyone but the Obamas from what is now their driveway, etc. . . . Any homeowner understands this -- especially those of us also without driveways or the land for them.

    after Bush I will never again ignore any report (none / 0) (#13)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:48:21 PM EST
    about a politician and think this needs explored to the fullest....Too important not to...

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#16)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    I don't think that was a "minor mistake." "Boneheaded" was an understatment.  I wouldn't take--let alone ask--for $10 from someone under federal indictment--and I'm not even a lawyer.  

    Nice try, but I am VERY keenly aware of what's been taken place the last 7 years and I'm not going to give him a pass because he did ONE thing unlike Bush.  That would be like giving HRC credit for peeing sitting down.  

    He Wasn't (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    Indicted at the time, although he was under investigation. This story is a zero, don't let your Hillary fever cloud your judgement.

    At this point it is a non-story.


    If it's a non story (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST
    what's it doing in the news?

    Whether or not there is a great deal of substance to Obama's connections with Rezko, it will be made to seem so by the Republican machine...just like Whitewater.  And the Clintons LOST money on Whitewater!

    There are unanswered questions which bear looking into re Rezko and Obama and their wives and the property owner.  Lots of close connections here which may or may not be a legal problem.

    It's not going away.


    Non-story (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    It seems to have escaped your attention that non-stories are what the Republicans use for their fodder.  They will try to make this a story.  The question isn't whether this is a story or not.  The question is whether Obama will keep his golden boy status with the media.  As long as he has his golden boy status the media will report this story in his favor.  When he loses that status they will report it against his favor.  Spend some time on the Daily Howler to look up other non-stories that turned into stories that helped to destroy our other candidates.

    Whitewater was less a story than this is.  Just remember that.  Gore never said he invented the internet.  He merely made the non-controversial claim to his documentable status as the politician who did the most to push the legislation that made the internet as it has come to be through.   Kerry is a respected war veteran with well-deserved medals.  Nothing detrimental to any of them in any of those stories.  

    So who will be the media golden boy in the GE?  Their new infatuation Obama or their long time love McCain?  From the history of how they deal with Republicans and Democrats it will be McCain and Obama who thinks he's had to face the worst will have to learn fast what all our other candidates have had to deal with.  One reason I don't want him to win this is he has not had to learn to deal with a truly hostile media while Hillary has had to deal with nothing else.  


    I meant "investigation" (none / 0) (#17)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:56:28 PM EST
    not indictment (though it seemed everyone else but BO knew it was leading to that).  

    Everyone Else (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:58:26 PM EST
    Took his money as well.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    Why, why, why did he donate tens of thousands of dollars to Obama?

    Just answer that one question.  Don't say, "but Clinton did X" or "Everybody else in IL got his money" or whatever other deflection you can come up with.  Just tell me why he strong-armed people into donating money to Obama, why he did a fundraiser to raise hundreds of thousands for Obama and why he  his own money to Obama.


    That Is What He Did (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    And unfortunately that it the American system. People give money to politicians in order to currry favor.

    What was unusual was not that he gave money, but that he allegedly broke the law. Well actually considering the GOP system breaking the law is not that unusual.

    No laws were broken by Obama and he is not under investigation.


    Simple answer (none / 0) (#28)
    by dannyinla on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:18:50 PM EST
    He wanted political clout and expected favors in return. It's especially prevalent in Chicago.

    The question you should be asking is what did Obama do as a result of getting campaign contributions for Rezko. There are no charges of wrongdoing.

    If anything, there are minor ethical questions. Any favors that Obama did for Rezko so far seem to be generally inconsequential.

    Not a deal breaker for me. I'm a pragmatist... and in Chicago, if you are a rising politician you should expect many people of influence to try to jump your train.  It's how you deal with them that shows character or lack thereof.


    And let's not forget (none / 0) (#25)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:13:40 PM EST
    that as a "community organizer" it makes his association with Rezko (aka the slumlord) even worse.  

    And I think what Kathy's may be trying to get at (though I'm not trying to speak for her) is that there does appear to be political favors BO did for Rezko--letters he wrote, a bill(s) he voted for that would have helped him, etc.  

    This IS politics as usual.  But again, we'll know more once the trial starts.    

    Why Don't You Turn (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    Your venom on the GOP. Considering what we have been through you are looking silly.

    Venom? That is uncalled for. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    Where is the venom in that post?

    Slum Lord? (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    Guilt by association. This is a non story but some here want to turn it into a Delay/Abramoff scandal. That is venom, perhaps not overt, but venom nonetheless.

    Rezko's business: (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:04:27 PM EST
    fix up old housing stop for low income housing.  In some cases, continue as property mgr.  No heat in renovated buildings in Chicago and property mgr., who continues donating to political campaigns, says this is due to no money.  Many properties go into foreclosure.  Some bankruptcy filings.  All this is in Obama's IL. Senate district, while he continues his relationship w/Rezko.  Obama remains of counsel to his law firm, which represents Rezko.  

    Big Deal (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:09:07 PM EST
    Politics involves dealing with some a**holes, evidentially Chicago is particularly dirty.

    Rezko and Foreclosures (none / 0) (#44)
    by Athena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    Is Obama citing his experience with Rezko when he talks about his foreclosure plan?

    It's not clear what kind of community organizer Obama was - what did he do?


    One thing he did is help put together (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    partnerships between businesses like Rezko's and community non-profit groups to fix up the housing with some city money involved.

    Now Rezko is facing trial on charges of sitting on several city boards and hitting people up for money to get city contracts.  


    It's Chicago (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    Let Fitz sort it out. Obama seems clean to me. If the GOP makes a big deal about this it will blow up in their face.

    This is like a ticket for jaywalking where there are no eyewitnesses, compared to all the GOP indictments for utter and total corruption.

    I do not think McBush will be stupid enough to go there.


    I don't think McCain will need to (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    even mention Rezko/Obama relationship with the trial going on in a major media market.

    Too Obvious (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    I think it will backfire.  I think America is sick of the GOP, whose proven criminal doings led us into a very expensive war, and will vote Demo. Obama Hillary ticket will win big time.

    Talk about change.


    somewhere today I read the suggestion (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    of Bloomberg as Obama's VP.  What say you?

    Uggh (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    Bad idea. That would really turn me off. It makes the most sense for HRC and OHB to join forces.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#71)
    by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    ... it is very clear.

    You can read about it here.


    exactly, NJDem, and thanks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    for answering my question.  It startles me that some people think it is bad to be asking about this twenty year relationship--as if the republicans aren't already gearing up to ask about these very things.  Should Obama win the nomination, they are not going to back down because someone thinks they are being "silly."  And if Obama is trying to win votes, and advocating transparency, why not come clean about this relationship?  Why not release his billable hours from the time Rezko was employing his firm?  Why not be more transparent?

    The fact that Rezko gave money does not bother me.  The fact that he apparently funneled money through other people--people seeking favors--is something that I think needs to be closely examined.

    I suppose that's why the FBI put in a mole, to try to figure out why these large sums of money were changing hands in Chicago politics and what the dough was purchasing.


    I Voted For Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    In my primary, but I am pretty sure that Obama will win the nomination at this point. I will look forward to TL getting back to criticizing the GOP and losing all the newbies who will not support the Dem nominee.

    It is really petty.


    Scrutiny Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Athena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    Obama has had so little scrutiny - this is a detriment when going up against the GOP machine.  Why be afraid of learning more about someone who could be the nominee of the party?

    I sure want to know as much as the GOP already knows.


    Patience (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
    Most Obama supporters here claim to want what you ask for, but it seems to me that what they really want is to bury Obama.

    How Long Does A Trial Like This (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:05:34 PM EST
    usually go on? IOW how long will this subject be in the news?

    Guessing 2-3 months min. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    because it is a multiple count indictment, there is an informant, and it is really two separate strands against Rezko:  one is requiring bribe money for city contracts, the other is committing fraud against a non-governmental big business victim.

    Fitz For Prez (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:16:04 PM EST
    In 2016.

    Thanks For The Info. n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:29:29 AM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:23:21 PM EST
    you named yourself squeaky because you're "squeaky clean"? :)
    Hahaha That is a good one. You are welcome to look through my comments here.

    Would you vote for Obama if he was the nominee? Or would you only do it if Clinton was Veep.

    That is the question.

    I'm glad you noticed I was kidding with (none / 0) (#54)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    my smiley face--it's always good to keep a sense of humor.

    But to answer your question, yes I will vote for him.  I'm a Democrat--I just hope I don't have to do so holding my nose.  

    But I do believe a Clinton/Obama ticket is a dream ticket (like I said before, even Stevei Wonder sees it).  I think it will give him enough time to learn the ropes and keep Dems in the White House for 16 years!!  

    Squeaky is (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    a very long time member of the TalkLeft community -- and one of its most valued members. Please don't insult Squeaky. Understand what's Squeaky is saying. Squeaky voted for Hillary, but like Big Tent and I, if Obama is the nominee, will support Obama.

    No one should accuse Obama of wrongdoing with Rezko, there's not a hint of that in the court records or news articles. What is an appopriate topic of discussion is whether his association with Rezko, however either well intended or poorly understood to be Chicago politics as usual, will be able to be utilized by McCain in the general election as a reason for Independents and Republicans to not cast a vote for Obama. That's a fair topic.

    It's too late for it to be a factor on March 4, but it's fair to assess the damage potential in November.

    Considering our last exchange (none / 0) (#56)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:56:37 PM EST
    I think me and squeaky have made amends.  However, I did feel the need to defend myself from being accused of spouting "venom."  

    Although I have not been posting here that long, I hope I have shown that I respect the civility at this blog and in no way meant to break that standard.  My apologies if I did so.