Then there's this:

Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was definitive. "No, precisely because I'd known him for [many] years and he hadn't asked me for favors."

Again, this isn't some unfamiliar contributor (like Norman Hsu, who contributed to both Hillary and Obama's campaigns without having a relationship with either.) Rezko is a man allegedly engaged in corruption at the highest level of Illinois politics. Obama had an ongoing relationship with him for 15 years -- since 1991 -- that included the time periods when Obama was serving in the Illinois legislature, running for U.S. Senate and serving as U.S. Senator. His real estate transactions with Rezko's wife occurred in June and December, 2005, after a year of serving as U.S. Senator.

The Tribune notes:

Though Obama insists he has answered all inquiries, his campaign's piecemeal written statements have left lingering uncertainties about whether the up-and-coming senator exchanged favors with the target of a federal probe.

Rezko helped "bankroll" Obama's 1995 and 1998 state senate campaigns, his failed congressional bid in 2000 and his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.

I've consistently maintained there's no indication Obama did anything legally improper in his Rezko dealings. Rezko is presumed innocent -- his criminal trial is only a few weeks old and scheduled to last months. Obama is not a player in any of the alleged misconduct.

But it's hard to say he didn't exercise poor judgment and it's fair to ask whether it might happen again, whether he's too naive and whether personal loyalties might again impair his judgment on some issue.

Also, on Monday, the jury questionnaire was unsealed in the Rezko trial. There were three pages of names (pdf)that prospective jurors were told might be witnesses at Rezko's trial. Barack Obama's name was one of them, for reasons unknown. Rezko's lawyer has since stated he has no plans to call Obama. I have written before I doubt it will come to pass. But, the lawyers for either Rezko or the Government at one time thought it a reasonable enough possibility that they submitted his name for inclusion. It's unlikely it was because Rezko helped Obama buy his house...that's neither here nor there in the criminal trial.

So, either Rezko contemplated Obama might be a character witness for him, or the Government thought they might need Obama to establish that he received campaign contributions from Joseph Amaranda and another contributor, which the Government claims were proceeds of an illegal finders' fee scheme. Rezko may be innocent, and Obama did nothing legally improper, but there's plent of dirty laundry to go around.

I'll close by returning to Norman Hsu. How silly that some want to compare Hsu to Rezko. Hsu was a bundler and a contributor with no personal relationship with either Obama or Hillary. Even Obama says in this latest interview, the mistake in doing personal real estate transactions with Rezko was not just that Rezko was under criminal investigation, but that "he had been a contributor and somebody involved in politics." Norman Hsu was never involved in politics. I'd bet he couldn't have reached either Obama or Hillary on the phone directly. Rezko may never have asked for favors, but I bet if he called Obama, he got through, and not just to a staffer.

Obama says voters who are concerned about his judgment should view his involvement with Rezko as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest."

Obama says despite his mistakes (engaging in personal real estate deals with someone under criminal investigation who was a contributor to his multiple campaigns for public office and involved in politics -- and his failure to spot the potential conflicts of interest) voters should "also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."

I think that's a fair statement of what voters should ask themselves. For me, I see someone who is not engaged in any wrongdoing, but the trust issue gives me pause.

Update: Comments now closed.