« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Obama and Rezko: TPM's Timeline
The connection has dogged Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ever since it was first reported in November of 2006. With Tony Rezko's trial finally beginning this week, and with the trial expected to last for months, it will keep dogging him.
You know the general outline. In June of 2005, Obama bought a home in Chicago's South Side. On the same day, Tony Rezko bought an adjoining lot, the house's side yard. It was not an isolated association between the two. Rezko was a big-time fundraiser and supporter of Obama, who raised more than $150,000 for Obama's state and federal campaigns over the span of nine years ($20,000 of that was from Rezko himself). Over the past 16 months, Obama has donated almost $160,000 of those Rezko-linked contributions to charity.
Rezko, a big-time real estate developer and mucky-muck in Illinois politics, was indicted in October of 2006 on fraud and extortion charges.
Although Obama's longterm relationship with Rezko has gained plenty of scrutiny, the house purchase has understandably gotten the most. Given Rezko's central role in Illinois' influence-buying and cronyism scandal, suspicion is natural. Obama himself has called his subsequent purchase of a strip of the adjoining lot from Rezko "bone-headed." It's hard not to agree.
There is no sure evidence that the house deal was worse than bone-headed. Not that the question has been put to rest. A number of unanswered questions remain.
For instance, it's unclear whether Rezko was actually doing a favor for Obama: whether Obama could not have bought the house otherwise or whether Obama derived a financial benefit from Rezko's involvement in the deal. The main suspicion has been that Rezko's purchase of the side yard at the seller's asking price allowed Obama's purchase of the house to go through since the seller insisted on closing both properties on the same day. But both Obama and Rezko have said that someone else had bid on the side yard, raising the bidding to the asking price. If that's the case, then Obama could have bought the house without Rezko's involvement. And Obama has said that his family has stayed off the side yard and never used it for family activities.
Obama has acknowleged, however, that Rezko's likely motivation for buying the lot was to curry favor with him. Rezko reportedly admitted as much to his business associates. And as The New York Times reports today, Rezko was so heavily in debt at the time he purchased the lot that he did it under his wife's name in order to protect it from creditors.
And then there's the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko "never asked me for anything" and "I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim. (The Chicago Sun-Times did dig up letters from Obama in 1998, some seven years before the house sale, urging Illinois and Chicago officials to provide funding for a Rezko company to build apartments for senior citizens, but both Obama and Rezko denied that Rezko had asked Obama to write the letters, and there's no evidence to the contrary.)
As Rezko's trial nears, you're sure to hear the two names raised together again and again. And you'll be hearing about that house purchase. So we're laying it all out here. We've compiled the main details in our timeline of Rezko and Obama's relationship here.
Recently, NBC News got a good aerial view of the Obama's home and side lot, which is now owned by Michael Sreenan, a former business attorney of Rezko's:
Back in 2004, the home's owner put both parcels on the market. There was no fence between the two properties, since the undeveloped land served as the house's side yard, but the properties were listed separately.
In January of 2005, the Obamas made three successive bids on the home, which had been listed at $1.95 million. After bids of $1.3 and then $1.5 million, the Obamas, through an agent, finally offered $1.65 million, a bid which the seller ultimately accepted. Obama has said that the house was on the market for a number of months and was overpriced. The seller, a doctor at the University of Chicago named Fredric Wondisford who has refused to speak to the media, has stated in an email released by the Obama campaign to Bloomberg that Obama's bid was the highest bid on the home. Obama has said that he didn't purchase the side yard because he could not afford it.
It's still unclear exactly how Rezko came to buy the side yard. Back in November of 2006, when Obama was first interviewed by The Chicago Tribune about the deal, he was very hazy on the details: "I don't recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property."
In answering written questions from The Chicago Sun-Times later that week, he was clearer: "to the best of [his] recollection," he'd told Rezko about the side yard and that "he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it."
Last month, an Obama spokesman divulged more: that at some point before the purchase, which closed in June of 2005, Obama and Rezko had toured the property together "because Rezko was a real-estate developer in the area" and Obama wanted his opinion. The spokesman could not specify when, exactly, this tour had occurred -- before Obama had made successive bids on the home in January of 2005, or after.
It's not clear when Rezko bid on the property, but Obama has said that the seller accepted Rezko's bid on the yard before accepting Obama's bid on the house.
Both Obama and Michael Sreenan, Rezko's former attorney who now owns the adjoining lot, have said that at least one other party bid on the yard, as an explanation for why Rezko ultimately paid the seller's asking price, $625,000. The burning question, of course, is whether Rezko was doing Obama a favor by buying the side lot at the asking price. Though the seller, via the campaign, has corroborated other details about the purchase, he has not confirmed that there were other bids on the lot.
Though Obama made his final offer in January of 2005, the purchase did not close for another five months. It's unclear why.
By June of 2005, when the purchases did close, Rezko's ethical and legal troubles had begun unraveling on the pages of the city's major newspapers. Just a month before, The Chicago Tribune had run a major profile of Rezko and his many entanglements, including the fact that he'd been subpoenaed as part of a sprawling corruption probe of the state government.
As you can see from the picture of the property above, the two properties are now divided by a fence. But there was no fence when the purchases were made. The Obamas have provided documents to The Chicago Tribune to show that, immediately following the purchase, they began making preparations for installing a fence -- an undertaking that required considerable paperwork since the properties are landmarked. That process lasted several months.
When it finally came time to install the fence, the Obamas also wanted to extend their property by another five to ten feet so that the fence would be at a distance from the house. The Obamas ultimately purchased from Rezko a 10-foot wide strip adjacent to and paralleling their property line.
Obama has said that he approached Rezko personally in January of 2006 about buying some of the adjacent lot. To set the price for the 1,500-square-foot strip, which was one-sixth of the entire lot, Obama hired a firm to appraise its value. When that appraisal came in at $40,500, Obama says he judged it too low for appearance's sake and instead set the price at $104,500, which was one-sixth of the price Rezko had paid for the entire lot. There's been no suggestion that Rezko actually negotiated with Obama on the price. In any case, he accepted.
Rezko's rapidly deteriorating situation might explain Obama's extra caution. Since its profile of Rezko the previous May, the Tribune had also brought word (as you can see on our timeline) that Rezko had been subpoenaed on a number of other matters, all pertaining to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of influence-buying, cronyism, and extortion in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D) government. It was increasingly clear that he was of central interest to prosecutors. He was finally indicted in October of 2006.
Though Obama's name may come up at the trial, since Rezko allegedly made illegal "straw" contributions (via intermediaries) to Obama in addition to a number of other politicians, he is expected to be only a peripheral player. As The Los Angeles Times puts it this morning, Obama will be in "the background." But unfortunately for Obama, Rezko is also certain to be in the background of his campaign through November.
Andrew Berger and Peter Sheehy contributed research to this post.
Josh
Zachary
At least the trial will be fairly prosecuted.
March 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is the worst that anyone can "dig up" on Obama I think that, in itself, is pretty telling.
I don't like dirty politicians but I am not seeing dirty in here at all. (Possible) Use of a side yard? Come on.
And seven years prior, Obama wrote a letter in favor of senior housing. Ok, did it happen? Was it defective? Was it overly costly? Was the state/city screwed? Were seniors screwed?
I may not like Daley for alot of his shenanigans, but the man runs the city well.
Assuming there is SOMETHING (anything??) to this whole Obama deal...who got screwed?
March 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you TPM.
I knew I could count on my boys to deliver any speck of dirt they could find right on time.
March 3, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For all the digging and hinting at guilt by association, there seems to be NOTHING there. How many articles have been written recounting this story and add ZERO new evidence to suggest that there was a quid pro quo between Rezko and Obama? Nothing. Nada. Nathan.
I assume the impetus for running this story today was the trial starting today. It would be helpful if you reminded folks that there is no connection between the charges against Rezko and his relationship with Obama. Again, None. Nathan. Nada.
March 3, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you just have to use your common sense.
March 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, no allegation of criminal activity has been made against Obama.
What troubles me is his admitted lack of judgement on this issue.
I am also troubled by his uncharacteristic lawyer speak at the news conference yesterday - "No allegations" was the answer he gave instead of "done nothing illegal".
March 4, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Chicago Press has researched this more than ANY political story in Chicago politics. They have done ALL the work and the one thing that comes out of their research and investigative work is:
Senator Obama did NOTHING wrong.
Get it. So this is a recycled story for the benefit of Bill Clinton and his wife because they were whinning about the non-coverage of this very covered story.
Senator Obama said he made a mistake, he has apologized for this numerous times.
Senator Obama wanted the house. He couldn't afford the lot. His friend, Rezcko, the real estate developer purchased the lot and sold him a small piece of it.
What's the problem again?
P.S. People buy houses for below market value all of the time. It's called negotiating a good deal.
P.S.S. If every deal that every politician did with someone who was later proved to be a crook made the news, that's all we'd ever hear about
Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama"s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that"s the key issue here.
Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama"s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven"t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."
Of course one boneheaded mistake when he was a young lawyer, and nothing but squeaky clean afterwards, will convince the Clinton people.
This is the only thing they can bring up. Talk about destructive politics. I suppose you have to accuse your opponent of doing something that you are really guilty of yourself
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
March 4, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
First time I have seen the picture. How did they get permission to sub-divide that side lot? The remaining lot now appears to be too small for building a home and probably lowers it's value. Why would the Rezko's do that when they were in severe financial trouble?
March 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He made $300M selling the land. As a real estate investor, my guess profit was the reason.
March 3, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He made $300M selling the land. As a real estate investor, my guess profit was the reason."
He did? Doing what? I've got him making about $50,000 on it: bought it for $625,000, sold part to Obama for $104,000, sold the rest for $575,000. This makes him about $54,000 profit. Did I miss something?
March 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. I got my facts screwed up on that one. I think the lawyer is trying to sell the property for $900M+, which is were I got the erroneous $300M figure. Thanks for pointing that out.
March 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case it helps your theory on conspiracy - Rezko's former lawyer now owns it. Maybe Rezko made him/her an offer they could not refuse?
March 3, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. That's about Rezko going bankrupt or something.
March 3, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not from Chicago, are you?
The typical Chicago lot is 40 x 100 or 40 x 120. That is a very typical lot pictured and not at all too small for a new structure. And, because it is a corner lot, it is worth more than a lot say in the middle of the block.
As someone else said, the point of buying is selling at a profit. Having Obama as a neighbor could have also increased the value of the lot.
There's still nothing here, but I just wanted to correct your assumption that that lot isn't buildable.
March 3, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not typical Chicago neighborhood, or property, if Obama's house is landmarked.
March 3, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your point?
March 4, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corner lots are only more valuable in commercial zones where you want to maximize street frontage and hence visibility (in my County you also get more legal signage). In residential zones they are typically in less demand because of additional building setbacks and increased traffic noise. Maybe the market works differently in Chicago than it does out here but I would be very surprised if there was much of a premium in a residential corner lot. I spent twelve years working first in the County Assessor's Office and then in the Planning and Building Department and then a year working land development for a private firm and none of that rings true.
March 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you have to consider the narrow and deep urban lot that you're dealing with here. Any traffic noise issues for this lot come from being located along Hyde Park Blvd.; the fact that there is a quieter cross street on the narrow side of your house isn't really significant. And the setbacks don't seem to be a problem; they seem to be reflected in the current fence location. Check out how the fence location compares to the locations of the neighboring houses to the west on Hyde Park Blvd. Setbacks in dense urban areas are not the issue they are elsewhere.
On the other hand, in a neighborhood of narrow, deep lots, corner lots offer an advantage in sunlight and privacy.
March 5, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did they get permission to subdivide?
In all likelihood they didn't need permission. It was pretty typical in older neighborhoods for the original subdivision to be done on the block and lot system and for the original buyers to buy double and triple lots. For example the core of my city was subdivided into lots 25' x 120' with the vast majority of houses built on double lots. In these cases the legal description of your deed would be something like 'Lots 23 & 24 of Block 323 of the Plat of Everett Div. G, County of Snohomish, State of Washington". From the photo that looks exactly like what was going on. In these cases the validity of the underlying lot is still recognized by the relevant jurisdiction. In my previous existence as a Permit and Zoning Tech we often had neighbors coming in dismayed that a older house had been torn down and replaced with two or three apparently jammed in all without notice of subdivision. Whereupon we would drag out the map showing them the property was actually three lots, and that moreover so was theirs.
The siting of the house in the photo suggests that everyone in the chain of title was aware that the side yard was actually a separate piece legally, listing the pieces separately mostly being a way of exerting leverage.
BTW whatever Obama's participation none of this looks good particularly the involvement of the Rezko's lawyer and the listing of the property at $900,000 almost immediately after the purchase. That has every sign of the lawyer covering for his client by masking the fact that the original $625,000 sale was way over valued. Obama supporters make much of the fact that Obama paid over $100 thousand for the strip even though that was much more than the appraised value of $40. That literally doesn't add up. You have a property that sold at $625,000 but apparently appraised soon after at $240,000 that ultimately gets listed again in reduced size for $900,000. Come on, land prices don't act like that in a developed suburb, and an experienced land developer like Rezko, under severe financial strain to start with (or so he is telling the judge) isn't going to let a property worth $900,000 go for several hundred thousand under the supposed market price. From a real estate perspective the whole deal stinks.
Some people may try to argue that while the property is actually worth $900,000 as a buildable lot even though $40k was a fair price for that strip, in actual fact the buildability of that lot was seriously hindered. As a corner lot it would normally have larger setbacks from both roads resulting in a very cramped building footprint. That 10' strip might have reduced potential building size by as much as 36,000sf (12,000 sf per floor in a three story). If the property really was zoned for town homes (as the lawyer asserts) there was a hell of a lot more value than $40k in that strip.
March 4, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comments above regarding the corner lot and setback issue. As to the subdivision, it definitely did at least require an approval from landmarks, because it had been together with Obama's landmark house. And an approval was almost certainly required for the lot line adjustment made in connection with Obama's purchase of the strip. I assume that's all public record; I wish someone would just pull copies of all those papers.
The appraiser may have made an error (after all, nobody is claiming that the entire lot was only worth $240,000), or may simply have determined that the diminution in value to the corner lot was not that significant, particularly if Obama agreed to some no-build area.
I doubt the lot is worth $900,000+ (except for someone enamored with the idea of living next to the Midwestern White House), but it seems a stretch to say that's part of the cover. He bought it for $575,000; it would be just as effective, and more believable, if he listed it for $700,000. My guess is he's thinking he has a chance to cash in on the situation; maybe he thinks the Secret Service will have to buy it for security purposes.
March 5, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
MORE clumsy writing at TPM IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
March 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The main suspicion has been that Rezko's purchase of the side yard at the seller's asking price allowed Obama's purchase of the house to go through since the seller insisted on closing both properties on the same day."
Is that really all this is about?
March 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've done this exact thing. When I couldn't get the asking price on one parcel, but I could on another, I broke even and called it a day. It was too big of a headache to continue trying to get the asking price on a parcel that simply would not move. So I accepted the lower price given that I got the asking price on the other parcel, preventing a loss.
At the very least, the seller's behavior seems (to me) very normal.
March 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty innocuous if you understand the details (Obama bid on the house apparently 5 or 6 months before he knew about Rezko's legal troubles, Rezko bid on the lot before Obama bid on the house, Obama bought the strip of land for quite a bit more than was asked), but the story is too nuanced to be explained away in a sentence. We can expect to hear wingnuts screaming "Rezko!" til the cows come home if Obama wins the nomination. Wonderful.
March 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did Obama do for Rezko?
Anything? No?
Then why is this a story!
March 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you just have to use your common sense. If you owe someone a favor, they get to decide when to collect.
March 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy: You have an uncanny ability for seeing through the smoke. Of course this is about a favor.
Anatomy of a favor, purely hypothetical, of course
A sitting U.S. Senator and his wife want a particular house. They can’t afford it because the sellers want to sell the house and a connected lot together and at the same time. The only way the Senator and his wife can afford to buy the house is if the sellers split the house from the lot, and drop the asking price on the house. The Senator might be able to afford a piece of the lot next door sometime in the future, to enhance his property, but only if a friendly buyer acquires the lot. The Senator recruits a friendly buyer (and political patron), despite the fact that the patron is under investigation. The Senator gets his wish. He buys the house (as the price is dropped), a friendly buyer/political patron’s wife acquires the lot next door at full price, and later, the Senator acquires a sliver of property from the owner of the lot next door.
March 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seeming 'October Surprise' story sucks, coming out today, but it's going to be hammered on today or tomorrow anyway. At least TPM's story, if not complete, is far more so than many of the MSM pieces. It would be nice to show a couterpoint to Clinton's albatross of Whitewater.
You gotta' laugh... if Obama wins the presidency, maybe we'll have even bigger corruption... paying off developers to build low-income housing!
March 3, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this.
Now, can we go to the big question.. Why won't Senator Clinton release her tax returns? This has been brought up and I think it is time that she was pushed to the wall on this. There are too many questions there that need answering -- as did this piece on the Obama house did.
March 3, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now, I assume we'll be getting a piece about the Clinton's and their tax returns and sources of money?"
Well, first of all you'd have to assume you were on a site that had even minimal journalistic standards.
March 3, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have the other candidates released their tax returns? Is there some requirement that they do so? I see that Obama did a partial release on his 2006 but not in anyway that would actually tell you anything. "Obama released only Form 1040 from his tax return and not underlying attachments which provide detail about income and spending." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070416obama-tax,0,445005.story
Oops, after a bunch of further digging I did find a fairly complete version.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf
But the question remains, why should candidates be required to reveal this level of personal detail? It is particularly ironic because Obama's Senate website shows him pushing for legislation to protect the privacy of tax returns.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060410-beware_of_where/ 'Beware of where your tax data go'
"If the average taxpayer were aware that there were even a remote possibility that their income-tax forms were heading to a database firm or a marketer, they'd be outraged," Obama told me last week, discussing a bill he had just introduced to block such sales.
Judging by the response to a loophole the IRS now says is 32 years old, I'd have to say he is right on the money."
Well that 'outrage' seemed to subside in a hurry, when it was useful as a political club against Hillary. People claim that Obama has released this data for 'years'. Well lets see it, say starting with his 2005. This whole thing is just a manufactured scandal under the standard Clinton rules of 'Where there is smoke, there is obviously not only fire, but a wide ranging conspiracy to hide it'
March 4, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! TPM is pulling out the stops for Hillary today... the kitchen sink strategy!
March 3, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't this part be a little higher in the story?
"And then there's the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko "never asked me for anything" and "I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim. "
March 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine piece of journalism.
Now, I assume we'll be getting a piece about the Clinton's and their tax returns and sources of money?
Right?
Hello??
March 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the shot on the front page... Obama biting his lip, caught red-handed, the jig is up.
Any word on when we're going to see the story on Hillary lifting the 3 AM commercial from a McCain ad, Josh?
March 3, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rezko was a big-time fundraiser and supporter of Obama, who raised more than $150,000 for Obama's state and federal campaigns over the span of nine years ($20,000 of that was from Rezko himself). Over the past 16 months, Obama has donated almost $160,000 of those Rezko-linked contributions to charity."
more than $150K raised by Rezko, almost $160K of that donated away by Obama. Isn't that MORE than all of it?
March 3, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear TPM,
Where is the muck?
Rake it clear for me.
Tell me in as many bullets as it takes where the potential criminal activity lies?
March 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREE afternoons at tpm ARE EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in a constant state of shock that the tax return issue hasn't been pressed more by the media. She has absolutely no excuse for withholding them.
March 3, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard the Clinton conference call on C-span today and started laughing, that is a scandal for another day.
I mean honestly I was laughing driving 270 and thinking that imagining that there is not a scandal brewing is like imaging that the smell outside the gas station bathroom door is unconnected to the interior of the bathroom.
I laughed really hard.
Look what 20 dollars dragged through a trailer park has done, wonders. I mean the ad dollars don't matter when you got a damn good muck story.
We can wait until April to see whats on the other side of that looming scandal.
Another day, mo-muck!
March 3, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There really has been woefully little coverage about what Bill has done these last 7 years to make all of his money. It's like there's a huge shadow obscuring part of the campaign that we won't know is there until the Republicans turn the spotlights on it. And what coverage there has been does not inspire confidence (I'm looking at you, Kazakhstan!)
Vetted my foot.
March 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on!!
Why does TPM highlight this continuing non-story on the eve of the OH and TX elections?
I generally respect the analysis here, and the fact that Josh Marshall has tried to be balanced even though he is a Clinton supporter, but this is truly shameful. Pun intended.
March 3, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Josh Marshall has tried to be balanced even though he is a Clinton supporter"
TPM has maintained all the balance of one-legged, drunk elephant riding a broken unicycle backwards across a clothesline.
March 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few points omitted from the above:
Local ordinances required that Rezco built a fence around the vacant lot. Obama paid for the engineering and legal work to make sure the fence was built to code. Rezko paid for the construction of the fence.
Rezko sold the lot within a year or so to one of his attorneys for some $50,000+ profit. That guy now has the property listed for $900,000+. It is plenty big enough for a house to be built on it.
I don't see it here, but some have suggested that Obama was parking on Rezko's lot, or that the driveway for the properties was located between the house and the lot. That is not true. There is a driveway on the right side of the house, which apparently is shared with the occupant of the former coach house behind Obama's house. There is off-street parking between the house and the coach house.
March 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm unconvinced that the lot minus the 10' sold to Obama is large enough for a house. I'm not familiar with the building regulations there, but I would certainly expect some sort of required setback from each property line -- that wouldn't even leave enough room for a double-wide, let alone another mansion.
My impression is that the empty lot has always been considered a buffer to the relatively major street seen at the left. That would explain why it was to be sold as a package deal along with the house. Of course, that would make it essentially worthless to anyone other than the house owner, which begs the question: Why would someone else buy it?
I suspect that Rezko did indeed see buying the neighboring property as either a way to curry favor or perhaps simply as a favor to an old friend. Obama's great desire for the house probably swayed him from thinking all too much about the deal, lest he be forced to confront his protesting conscience.
So if it was how I've portrayed it, is it a big deal? Not really. A momentary lapse of judgment with no victims to speak of -- I can live with that.
March 3, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not really sure "Unanswered Questions" is really a fair description of what's going on here, because it suggests that the questions are unanswered because Sen. Obama has declined to answer them.
Examples:
(1) [I]t's unclear whether Rezko was actually doing a favor for Obama ... Obama has acknowleged, however, that Rezko's likely motivation for buying the lot was to curry favor with him
That seems answered.
(2) [T]here's the other big question, whether Obama ever did anything for Rezko in return for his purchase of the side yard or all those contributions. Obama has said that Rezko "never asked me for anything" and "I’ve never done any favors for him.” No substantial evidence has surfaced to contradict that claim.
That seems answered.
(3) It's still unclear exactly how Rezko came to buy the side yard.
If the question is what was the blow-by-blow of events in 2006, it doesn't seem that the Obama campaign is holding anything back. In any event, if the upshot of this question is to ask (1) in a different way, that was answered.
(4) It's not clear when Rezko bid on the property
Seems like a question for Rezko.
(5) Though Obama made his final offer in January of 2005, the purchase did not close for another five months. It's unclear why.
Is that a long time? It usually takes a couple months for a house to close. Does it matter?
March 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe some of my fellow Obama supporters are being a little too harsh on TPM's alleged bias. While highlighting this story above the fold the day before primaries is questionable, I really can't find that much pro-Hillary bias. Maybe I'm blind, but I just don't really see it.
March 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. I see this as a report and nothing more. I don't see anything pro or con vis a vis Obama. It's a story that will be in the news for some time (due to the wingnutosphere) and this is informative. What's wrong with this story? Nothing in my eyes.
March 3, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson's tacit endorsement of Obama:
"Whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday, a clear lead, should be, in my judgment, the nominee."
-- Bill Richardson, "Face the Nation," CBS, 3/2."
Since it's impossible for Hillary to close the gap tomorrow, I guess Obama is set.
March 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM, if this is all, it is pretty flimsy. Yes, Retzko seems a crook. But this thing of gilty by association is getting out of hand. If this is enough to question a guy, then Congress should be empty.
March 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed in TPM. I'm disappointed that they are not breaking out the timeline on Hillary's tax returns. Nor have they reported Hillary's IPA dealings. Nor have they looked into the "is he or isn't he" Muslim overtones in the past few weeks.
I don't know where to go for fair reporting anymore. It seems everyone is all of a sudden bowing to Clinton.
Why? I would guess it brings in business to hype a contest when it should have been over. The media makes money - so does TPM. They, like everyone else, wants to see this go to the convention so that we all check the websites, watch the news to keep up with the stories.
Its just sad, disappointing, and ultimately, deflating to think that our society has come to this - where its a war of attrition and not a celebration of democracy.
March 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"paul" getting journamalism tips from "greg" is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
March 3, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but all things considered, while this is important, if this is the absolute worst that can be dredged up on Obama, I think it will suffice, considering every other candidate that has been in this campaign.
Also, this is one more TPM reader asking about Hillary's tax returns.
March 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about JUDGMENT, my friends. Associating with and engaging in a land deal with man who is under Federal investigation, and in 2005 while he was in the U.S. Senate? Please.
March 3, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er.......did you read the timeline? The house deal preceded any news of Rezko being under investigation. Or, are you saying that Obama should have been psychic?
March 3, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deal did not precede Rezko being under investigation, and it was widely known there was a cloud surrounding this man. Obama himself has said it was a "boneheaded" thing to do. Again, I say: JUDGMENT.
The story goes much deeper than the land deal, which you will all hear in due time.
March 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, everyone keeps saying "just wait for the other shoe to drop." I guess Hillary is just holding that info for when it really matters.
And Bush is gonna release that proof of the WMDs any day now....
March 3, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Hillary has nothing to do with it. The media now just need to follow the money.
March 3, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please Independent Ben. Let us know the secrets that you obviously know!! Don't hold out on us!! The Chicago press and Fitzgerald have obviously missed something big!! Please save the country by exposing Obama now!!
March 4, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the TPM site and the Muckrakers either succumbed to pressure from the 'distressed female' ploys, or have lost their integrity rudder.... and right on the eve of important primary elections.
I just feel deflated to be so let down about a blog site that I once considered fair and measured and courageous. The feeling is akin to what I have felt increasingly about the rovian tactics of the Clintons, the supposed titular heads of the Democratic party.
That particular picture of Obama splashed on the main site alongside the phony 'Unanswered Questions Remain' headliner is yellow journalism at its worst.
By the way, did Muckrakers do any stories on Hsu and his mysterious targeted funding of key Dems in early primary states? Just asking, because, if so, then I take back what I just wrote about this site losing the integrity rudder.
March 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am thoroughly disgusted with Josh Marshall, Paul Kiel and Talking Points Memo. This information has been in in the public domain for at least a year but Josh Marshall suddenly runs it the before a huge primary contest.
What's with headline, "Obama and Rezko: Questions Remain"? What questions remain? Does Paul Kiel want to elaborate?
Hey, newsflash! Questions remain about the Clintons. What about Bill Clinton's relationship with Canadian financier, Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan dictator, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev?
Did Bill Clinton get paid for advising the UAE company, DP World, on the US ports deal?
I am sure Josh Marshall will deign to provide his readers with an explanation for his blatant partisanship - on Wednesday morning.
Now I understand what Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler means when he criticizes Josh Marshall.
Josh Marshall, wrong on the Iraq War and wrong now.
March 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh well, at least the idea that TPM was pro-Clinton has been put to rest.
March 3, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live a block away and it sure doesn't look like that side lot is big enough to build a house on. Anybody have detailed measurements?
Also, apparently the Secret Service has been preventing would-be buyers from seeing it. I can't imagine they would allow anyone to build there.
I support Obama, but he's a politician and has politician's flaws.
March 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on. The next time you stroll by, take a look at the next house to the west on Hyde Park Blvd. You can't picture a house that size, facing toward South Greenwood Ave, on that side lot? How about the first three houses (from Hyde Park Blvd) on the west side of South Ellis Avenue, the next block over?
March 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The city actually has laws about this and that's what I'm asking, not whether it is imaginable that some house could technically be built that would fit within the lot boundaries.
March 3, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Laws that would not allow a subdivision if the resulting lot was not buildable. They like to collect real estate taxes, remember?
March 3, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko raising $150k for Obama is a big deal, but Peter Paul raising $1M for Clinton is not. Duh!
March 3, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as slamming TPM for this story, you guys need to take your blinders off. The Rezko trial starts today, and the national press has finally gone with it. It's everywhere. There are questions that Obama should have been required to answer long before now.
March 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
it doesn't appear that there really are any questions
March 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say this: The level of debate on this thread is really juvenile. TPM had a reputation for attracting quite erudite commentators. The bunch I see here sound like kids entrapped by a cult figure. Sad
March 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that TPM is covering this issue with the fairness and impartiality it deserves.
Now, how about those Hillary Clinton tax returns?
March 3, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We will sell no wine before its time." PAUL MASSON
Laughing my ass off.. the Clintons are gangsters and should never be under estimated.
"We will sell no MUCK before its time." MSM
I mean honestly, that story can be covered after the primary. Do I smell an odor? Does it take a psychic to smell one? But you have to hand it to the Clintons today, they slimmed Obama big time and did it on a nickel, they took him off topic, and can probably scramble back into the election and file suit against TX, redo MI and FL, and then claim victory in the super delegate scheme.
Meanwhile Obama is stomping on the doo doo that somebody put in a paper bag and lit before ringing his doorbell.
The Canadians are laughing there asses off over Obama-Nafta-gate and will do so again when Hillary finally does reveal her taxes.
Hillary will allow the Kanooks a trade deal to sell sunshine in FL when she is POTUS after this week, if she gets elected after McCain gets to editorialize over her returns.
March 3, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if dirt sticks, Obama still will look much more cleaner than Clinton, and VERY much more cleaner than McCain.
March 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. Don't be disappointed.
Josh said as much a month or so ago: He'd vote for Bill Clinton again if he could. What more evidence do you need?
Put it in this form and it should all come clear:
Josh is the "journalist" who coined the term "Shag fund" and hounded Rudy to death on it; but at the same time admits that he would gladly vote for a guy who stuck a cigar up young woman's puss in the Oval Office and lied for months about it!
WTF?
I mean come on... you expect integrity from TPM?
Since that moment I never have.
It is play pretend balance here.
Always has been play pretend.
And there will be no Clinton tax return timeline.
March 3, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cigar up the young woman's puss? Ouch.
That was a woman? Interesting.
Anyway, I assume Hillary takes credit for that, as well. It was, afterall, part of the 35 years.
March 3, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s Fundraising on the campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out the article “Follow the Money” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165
March 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Chicago Tribune's investigative reporters extensively delved into the relationship between Rezko and Obama, followed the money and did a series of reports. The Tribune found nothing that suggested something improper took place. Likewise the FBI failed to uncover any nefarious dealings as well.
Furthermore the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama for president therein if any questions lingered it is dubious the paper would risk their reputation?
"The Chicago Tribune on Sunday also backed its home state senator, after opening on this wry note: "In 1996, this page endorsed a Chicago attorney, law school instructor and community activist named Barack Obama for a seat in the Illinois Senate. We've paid him uncommon scrutiny ever since, wryly glad that he lived up to our modest prediction: We said Obama 'has potential as a political leader.'"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003702755
Also see:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/
There is no "there," there.
Assuming guilt by association is not a valid argument, but you are correct the right wing will blow it out of proportion.
That pretty much says it all.
March 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
QUESTIONS REMAIN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON'S TAX RETURNS! Where is that TPM headline?
If those struggling blue collar workers in Ohio knew about the bing bucks that the Clintons have been raking in, they might not understand that she really doesn't feel their pain.
Throw in some talk about Bill consorting with Muslims and Central Asian dictators, those blue collar workers might wonder just what it is they don't know about the Clintons.
March 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
*cough*johnsolomon*cough*
March 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPMMuckraker isn't suffering from specific bias (Kiel does a pretty good job), it's suffering from "even-Steven-itis", a condition characterized by wanting to assume both (or all) of the candidates are equally impugned by corruption; which of course is not the case, we just don't have any solid reason to believe there was any wrongdoing here.
if you want REAL bias, read Greg Sargent's blog.
March 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one (and it seems the only) Obama supporter who was happy to read the story, as I like to be fully informed. While I agree with the posters that the word choices implied that the there could be more to the story, that the Muckraker style, and no one whined when Paul used the same tone in the Murkowski and Stevens real estate stories last year. As for the timing before March 4th, I highly doubt that TPM Muckraker will have a serious impact on the primaries.
March 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm distressed because this is starting to smell a lot like Whitewater. Let’s review the check list.
Real estate deal involving people who later got into trouble with the law? Check.
Thoroughly investigated by local papers and ultimately dismissed by them as a whole lot of nothing? Check.
Pimped to gullible national media outlets by political opponents who insist that the politician in question "must" be dirty? Check.
Incoherent reporting on financial details of transction by financially naive reporters who apparently believe any real estate transaction more complicated than closing on a condo is inherently shady and suspect? Check.
Breathless insinuation without any actual evidentiary or logical basis? Check.
Complete absence of any evidence of actual wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of the politician in question? Check.
Laundry list of entirely hypothetical things that might have theoretically happened, in the sense that they were not physically or temporally impossible and not conclusively proven not to have happened, framed as “troubling unanswered questions” despite the complete lack of any evidentiary basis for believing they did? Check.
Rabid, unreasoning, inexplicably enraged supporters of opposing politicians who are pimping the story hyperventilating over the story and making up a lot of crazy shit about the supposed scandal that become part of the legend despite being demonstrably false? Check.
So, yeah, it is a little upsetting to see TPM, of all sources, jumping onto this train, even more disappointing that they completely fail to acknowledge within the story that the Clinton people have been pushing this nonsense for months and insisting that it means you’re biased against them if you don’t run with it. And, yes, naive though it seems, it is downright sickening to see the Clintons pushing this when I think about how hard I defended them against the loonies here back during the bad old days of Ken Starr and ace detectives.
March 3, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI:
Clinton refuses to return contributions totaling $170,000 from International Management Consulting Firm despite the EOC found 103 females were sexually harassed, assaulted and subjected to innuendo, implication, suggestive and demeaning language.
Now what does that say about supporting women's rights!
Shame on Hillary for not taking a principled stand for women's rights!
March 3, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say that I find interesting that Obama's Rezko issue is getting so much play while Clinton has so many criminal donors that they could field their own baseball team in prison. But that doesn't get any real play. Is it possible that the mainstream media is waiting for the general election to spring that on us if Hillary was the nominee?
March 3, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama looks pretty clean on this to me. Now get rid of the "guilty-looking" photo of him in the interests of balance. (Compare to Hillary photo on front page of tpm.com)
March 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis: No problem with publishing the story if there is one. But after the title, you read the story and there is no fact there indicating corruption on Obama's part. And the fact that this is published right before OH and TX. And coming together with similar articles in the press all weekend in which there is a lot of noise but very little substance, including one by Novak (TPM, it is not a very good company to be with). In fact, the article that NYT published on McCain had a lot more in it, than this Rezko thing.
March 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a well done article. You asked the obvious questions, and gave the known answers. THAT's what journalism is SUPPOSED to be like.
Unfortunately, most of the comments here demonstrate the reactionary nature of the electorate. That's what Rove et el has used to their advantage for so many years.
March 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can ALWAYS tell a driveby HILLARY supporter from the way they always SHOUT specific WORDS in their comments.
March 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHOUTING IS EXCELLENT NEWS! FOR HILLARY!!
March 3, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great piece of investigative journalism... Now it's time to announce - THERE IS NO THERE THERE!!! Again, if this is the worst anyone can come up with about Obama, why not just drop it rather than allow it to play into GOP hands? This doesn't even begin to compare with McCain's hand in the Lincoln Savings mess or pick-your-Clinton-scandal.'
Moreover, I second the motion that TPM immediately get on the Clinton tax returns. It's unacceptable for HRC to state that she'll release them once she's the nominee. We need to know NOW - or, as it now appears, before PA's primary on 4/22.
March 3, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It either comes out now, or later. Better now. The timing seems designed for the TX and OH primaries, though.
Wait'll Bush's October Surprise happens for whoever becomes the D nominee. For now the GOP is counting on KKKarl and Fox News to raise doubts about both D candidates.
Next up, the 527s, some terrorism scares and color-coded alerts, maybe bomb bomb bomb Iran.
It'll be ugly.
March 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
the tax returns bother me, but the stonewalling of those presidential library records concern me even more.
sure the tax stuff may prove sexier (and more damaging...foreign investors, hedge fund magnates), but those schedules as First Lady will, in all likelihood, tear to shreds her arguments about "experience" in the white house. which is why i'm sure they've been d.r.a.g.g.i.n.g their feet.
man, it's like a perfect storm of sh*t. Obama will lose TX and Ohio; HRC will keep pushing this Rezko crap; the Rezko trial will loom even larger in the background; FOX News will continue to bang on about this Ayers, Farrakhan and Rev. Wright business; meanwhile, HRC will keep pushing the NAFTA / Canada stuff...the goal line gets pushed back to Pennsylvania, which HRC will win. and then we've got a serious, bloody civil war on our hands.
All this innuendo will destroy Obama unless he comes out and does what McCain did about the sex scandal--take all the questions one time, for as long as needed, and then never talk about it again. let people get over it.
meanwhile, i am perplexed why clinton's own convicted financers dont even register as a blip on TPM's radar.
March 3, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What people ought to be concerned with here, IMHO, is the very simple fact that if, as a result of the coverage of Rezko's trial, Obama becomes even more closely associated with the scandal (rightly or wrongly)it could provide the impetus for the media to show that it has no problem being just as unfair to him as it has been to Hillary. If that occurs, the unsinkable USS Obama may be in for some very stormy seas. It would be more than a tad ironic if this sort of thing only really started to gain traction after he had the nomination all locked up. Like him or not, Obama has not had to weather much in the way of negative press so his ability to handle it and/or surviv it is an unknown factor. That, in and of itself, should be of tremendous concern to any Democrat or anyone who thinks getting the Republicans out of the White House is an important thing to do.
March 3, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know about this ... I saw Novak's naked column in the Post, and ran around trying to find out what was what... actually, came here first. I am very glad to read this clarification, which diminishes the um issue. As for -why write about this today-, it is the first day of the trial, folks!
March 3, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Josh actually can vote for Bill Cinton again--by writing in Bill Clinton's name on the ballot in November.
Think he will?
March 3, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real question in this story is why Obama gave so much to Rezko's charity. Is it mere coincidence that the amount Rezko gave to Obama and the amount Obama gave to the charities is almost the same? The next question a journalist should be asking is what, if anything, did the charities do for Rezko or Obama.
March 3, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talkin' about?
March 4, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the headline on the main TPM page is sensationalist and unsupported by the facts represented in the article. There's nothing new here, just a detail rundown what was already known. The headline on this page, Obama and Rezko: TPM's Timeline, is much more appropriate and less incendiary.
Regarding the tone of the article and the lack of evidence of wrongdoing, my point is that this is Muckraker's MO. This site has repeatedly reported circumstantial evidence on various scandals and hinted at sinister doings that go beyond the evidence. Sometimes there is a "there there", which ultimately comes out, as in the attorney scandal; sometimes there is no there, or if there is, clear evidence never arises, as in the Murkowski real estate scandal. (I think that the Murkowski thing was shadier than the Rezko thing, but nonetheless, no smoking gun emerged, and the story died out).
So, the comments are correct that Muckraker is reaching, but Muckraker always reaches. Readers don't seem to mind when it's an evil Republican who is obviously up to no good, but when applied to a beloved Democrat, it's manufactured and sensationalist.
As to Muckraker's impact on the eve of the March 4th primaries, I love Muckraker, but it's primary means of influence is indirect. It draws implications from scandals that MSM won't touch. When there is a there there, MSM eventually picks it up, and TPM wins a prize. In this case, there's nothing new in the story, no independent Muckraker contribution, so nothing for MSM to to run with. I can't imagine that there a huge number of undecideds in OH and TX who will read this article and decide vote for Clinton.
That said, I do agree that the timing of the article is unfortunate and ill-conceived, especially as there is no scoop to justify publishing this story today.
March 3, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurred to me earlier today that if this were my first time visiting TPM, and I opened the main page and saw this:
http://tinyurl.com/23rced
as the content of the main page, I would form an immediate, if subconscious, opinion of this website, Clinton, and Obama.
That happens to be the biggest problem I have with sensationalist headlines.
Maybe I'm picking nits. I kinda feel like I am. But I can't ignore that kind of contrast.
March 3, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that people would draw that impression, but we've seen multiple headlines in favor of Obama on the main page as well.
I don't mind the poll headlines. The fact is that most of those damn polls are going in Clinton's favor today. But the Rezco headline is definitely a poor choice.
March 3, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is peanuts compared to when rove and his friends at the rnc get their hands on obama. look at obamas time line at the usa today. there are so many holes it looks like swiss cheese. they won't swift boat him. they will just fill in the holes
March 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would also add that the ire would be better directed at the NYT, which has also run with a "questions linger" headline. Moreover, I expect that the Times has many more readers, even in TX and OH, than Muckraker, and unlike Muckraker, the Times never picked up some of the other more circumstantial stories, like the Murkowski deal. Between the McCain scandal and the Rezco article, they seem to reaching more than usual.
March 3, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree wholeheartedly. Feb 9, NY Times had front page story on Saturday with headline:
"Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html
That's right, they went on for 1791 words basically saying, as headline suggests, 'no story here' along with 'trust us, we prodded EVERY ONE of his old friends'.
You're not misreading it, it doesn't say, as one would expect for a front page NYTimes piece, "... Drugs Played Big Part ... ", it says 'Bit' part.
THAT was on the front page!!!
Tomorrow's headline at NYT:
"Old Friends Say Bit Part in One Pizza Hut Commercial Did Not Launch Ben Affleck's Young Career".
March 3, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding, right? What fantasy world are you living in? That lot is huge!
Perhaps you mean not enough room to build a 13 bedroom, 10,000, single story Uber-Mansion! Or perhaps you mean not enough room for a standard Mansion + cattle ranch?
You could easily pick up Obama's house and place it comfortably on that lot. If you extend Obama's mansion's roof line to get it's width, you could build an exact replica and fit it on that lot without touch any of the shrubs or tall trees!!!
Quit tryin' to make fire where there's no smoke.
Quit tryin' to make hay. although plant switch grass and you could probably make 10 bushels from that lot...
March 3, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this was meant as reply to SHV above. Logging in lost track of that.
But, I must admit, I may have to retract a bit:
http://www.zillow.com/aerial/DualMapPage.htm?zpid=3984958
(drag a bit to right)
The hedges on Hyde Park Blvd would have to be raised to fit all of Obama's house on it.
But a comparably sized, if slightly narrower & longer, house could easily be built.
oh4real
March 3, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seeming 'October Surprise' story sucks, coming out today, but it's going to be hammered on today or tomorrow anyway. At least TPM's story, if not complete, is far more so than many of the MSM pieces. It would be nice to show a couterpoint to Clinton's albatross of Whitewater.
You gotta' laugh... if Obama wins the presidency, maybe we'll have even bigger corruption... paying off developers to build low-income housing!
March 3, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you guys don't think that the fact that the Rezko trial starts today is enough of a reason to run this story?
Denial ain't just a river in Eygpt.
March 3, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please go back read the Los Angeles Times story (link in last paragraph of the post). It got more background than the TPM story. Obama's ambitions were bankrolled by this guy. This isn't going away...
March 3, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Trib (which ought to know) clearly explains just what Rezko was about:
"For years, it's been Rezko's practice to befriend up-and-coming political figures, from Blagojevich to the godson of former County Board President John Stroger."
There's no indication that Rezko's relationship with Obama was any different than with many other Chicago-area politicos. Or that Rezko's financial support was any great portion of Obama's funds. The LA Times runs a lot of figures together, but note that while the times doesn't specify how much was raised at the fundraiser at Rezko's house, it says that the total Rezko raised for Obama from his 1995 State Senate campaign through his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign was $200,000. Obama raised $15 million for his 2004 Senate campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/us/politics/03obama.html?ei=5090&en=c439d67ceb294d30&ex=1333252800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
So it hardly seems that Rezko was a huge player for Obama.
March 4, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Distilling the above, will somebody on the anti-Obama side of this issue explain what the core accusation is here?
It seems to me that the major accusation in this matter has always been that the sellers sold the house to Obama for less than its real value because Rezko bought the lot for more than its real value. But there is no evidence to support that, the Sellers say otherwise, and Rezko made $50,000+ in the resale of the lot (including the sale of the strip to Obama).
A second accusation is that Obama got a sweet deal on the purchase of 10 feet of the lot. But although an appraisal gave a $40,000+ value for that strip, Obama paid $100,000+, 1/6th of Rezko's purchase price for 1/6th of the lot. Speculation in this thread that the remaining 75,000 square feet is not buildable is just way off base.
So not only is there no evidence at all that Obama repaid Rezko for Rezko's favors relating to this land deal, but there's no evidence that there was any favor from Rezko involved.
Once you get past that, it's just the distastefulness of Obama dealing with Rezko. The observation that Obama exercised some poor judgment here is fair, and was acknowledged a long time ago by Obama.
So what exactly do folks think went on here that is so nefarious?
March 4, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
rezco and obama walked the lot it seems obama liked the house but couldnt afford the lot (even though obama and his wife make a lot of money). im sure he shared this with rezco because they were standing outside the house looking at the lot. with obama buying part of the lot it made the rest of the lot unbuildable(try building in a historic district) i pulled back on the map and saw no new construction. this deal just smells fishy and when obama gets the nomination i'm sure the republicans are going to call this mansiongate
March 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"with obama buying part of the lot it made the rest of the lot unbuildable(try building in a historic district)"
There is absolutely no basis for this. First, the subdivision would not have been allowed if the resulting lot was unbuildable. Second, the lot is 75,000 sq. ft., plenty large enough for an urban house, and comparable with many lots within the surrounding blocks. Third, Obama's lot was apparently landmark-protected, but I haven't seen anything saying the entire neighborhood is protected. Fourth, the lot is unimproved, so there wouldn't really be any historic preservation issues anyway.
March 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
what city of chicago laws do you use to support your comments? where in this neighborhood of million dollar houses do you see a new urban house (look at zillow link above)? in a historic district you cant build any house you want
March 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to provide Chicago laws to support that this 75,000 lot is buildable? Why don't you (or anybody) provide any evidence at all that it's not buildable? It's clearly as big as many lots right in the neighborhood.
I don't even know that there is a historic district involved (all I've seen is reference to Obama's house being landmark-protected), but in any event why would being in a historic district prevent this lot from being developed? There's no existing structure to protect. There may be some additional design requirements above standard code, but the city doesn't encourage vacant lots.
I don't know what to make of your references to "new urban house". Or to "million dollar houses". If the neighborhood is full of million dollar houses, that would make the vacant lot even more valuable. (I've seen other sources suggesting that there is a mixture of values in the Hyde Park neighborhood).
Y'all are pulling this buildable lot crap right out of your asses.
March 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to tell just using Zillow, but look at the house one block west on Hyde Park, it looks like new construction:
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?zprop=3984986
(That would also explain the low Zillow valuation). Now go across Ellis and up the street a little to the house with the tennis court. That one, and the adjoining property to the south, look like fairly recent construction to me.
Stop makin' stuff up!
March 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure the lot is big enough to build on, but what kind of structure would be approved adjacent to a historic property? And no one - Rezko, his wife, or the new owner - has stated any intent to build on the lot. Also, as you can see from the picture, the entire two properties are fenced from the street in one fence - the new owner of the side lot can't even get to his property without going on the Obama property.
The most logical scenario is that the side lot was purchased by Rezko as a favor to Obama with the intent of keeping it vacant. When Rezko's legal woes started, he sold it to his attorney for appearances sake. No one has any plans to build on that property, which is what makes it a favor to Obama. Maybe he has not (yet) returned the favor, but he still accepted the favor. People are entitled to know these facts.
March 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it's an urban neighborhood, and there's no reason to think that a house much like many other houses in the neighborhood wouldn't be approved.
"And no one - Rezko, his wife, or the new owner - has stated any intent to build on the lot."
Not true, the current owner has said:
"While no sale has taken place, "We're hoping to move ahead on development," Sreenan said.
It was premature to discuss details, Sreenan said, but one thing was sure about this potential venture: "It will be entirely separate from Mr. Rezko."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0611010273nov01,1,5370479.story?page=3
No word on whether Sreenan has actually done any development work; he has the property listed for nearly $1 million (which would be a tidy profit); perhaps he's trying to cash in on the prime location?
March 4, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the fencing goes, the outer perimeter fence pre-existed the subdivision and sale to Obama and Rezko and so it apparently wasn't built with any gates over on the vacant lot side. The dividing fence was built subsequently and includes a gate. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the lot owner wouldn't be able to get access directly off of Hyde Park Blvd--there are houses right next door on Hyde Park Blvd that have curb cuts.
March 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Formerly NCSteve, you are right on the money. This phony scandal is exactly like Whitewater. The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves for pushing this when they know how unfair and ridiculous it was when it was done to them. Politics ain't beanbag but there have to be limits.
I dare TPM to put up their next Rezko story with a nice big picture of Jim McDougal next to it.
March 4, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are arguing about degrees of buildability in a corner lot on the South Side of Chicago. If this is the nub of the argument, TPM isn't the only one with too much time on its hands and nothing to show for it. Some bonus questions:
1. Where were the Rose Law Firm billing records during the two years they magically vanished in Hillary's residence while they were sought by the OIC? How did they magically appear in her closet? Had they been scrubbed first? If hidden, isn't that obstruction of justice?
2. Where are her tax returns? Aren't the Clintons simply afraid of looking patrician? Who are their patrons?
3. Hillary did not divorce Bill after Monica, which was a very tough decision, she writes. Does she think he should have resigned? Why not? Has someone asked her this during the campaign? Why not?
4. Where are her First Lady papers? Aren't there unanswered questions lurking within them?
5. Was Hillary complicit or participatory in essentially leasing the Lincoln Bedroom to contributors?
6. What does Hillary think of Christopher Buckley's novel, No Way To Treat a First Lady, in which the protagonist, Beth MacMann, is alleged to have murdered her philandering President husband?
7. If Hillary pays Mark Penn $3.8MM for January and only raised $14MM for her entire campaign, can there even be a doubt that she is not capable of being the chief executive of any organization that values balancing a budget and/or producing good work product?
8. Why did Hillary say not "as far as I know" about whether Obama was Muslim?
9. Given that Hillary attacked Obama for several days about alleged "plagiarism," why has she not apologized for lifting John Edwards' close from the December 2007 Dem debate and using it as her own, almost perfectly verbatim, in the close of the recent Texas debate.
10. Is Bill really getting it on with that Canadian pol twenty years his junior? Do we trust that he will not embarrass our country and party again if turned loose in Washington? If he'd do so as President, what would constrain him now?
11. How will we do in the off year elections if we somehow put Hill and Bill in the White House? Just peachy, no doubt.
March 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the tax returns bother me, but the stonewalling of those presidential library records concern me even more.
sure the tax stuff may prove sexier (and more damaging...foreign investors, hedge fund magnates), but those schedules as First Lady will, in all likelihood, tear to shreds her arguments about "experience" in the white house. which is why i'm sure they've been d.r.a.g.g.i.n.g their feet.
man, it's like a perfect storm of sh*t. Obama will lose TX and Ohio; HRC will keep pushing this Rezko crap; the Rezko trial will loom even larger in the background; FOX News will continue to bang on about this Ayers, Farrakhan and Rev. Wright business; meanwhile, HRC will keep pushing the NAFTA / Canada stuff...the goal line gets pushed back to Pennsylvania, which HRC will win. and then we've got a serious, bloody civil war on our hands.
All this innuendo will destroy Obama unless he comes out and does what McCain did about the sex scandal--take all the questions one time, for as long as needed, and then never talk about it again. let people get over it.
meanwhile, i am perplexed why clinton's own convicted financers dont even register as a blip on TPM's radar."
I echo every word in this superb post!
It's obvious that TPM is just another media outlet to cave in to Clinton's pathetic melodramatic performances, tantrums and tirades. It joins the ranks of NBC, MSNBC and ABC's Nightline (Terry Moran and Cynthia McFadden) who are all in the tank for Clinton. I hate to use a catch phrase from the Fox News Channel, but what happened to "fair and balanced" journalistic ethics and coverage?
March 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Rezko angling for favors from Obama?
Obviously.
Did Obama do any favors for Rezko?
So far, no evidence. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Did Obama get a sweetheart deal on 1/6th of the side lot?
Obama himself made sure he didn't.
Reichwing propagandists will continue to pound on this, but to me this seems at best a lame attempt to smear Barack Obama.
March 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad to say that I am watching a gifted demagogue who admitted 4 years ago that he was a big believer in being qualified for a job now run for one that can get us all killed. America wants a Messiah it would appear. The selected audiences Obama speaks to sound like they have been choreographed by Leni Reifenstal as one must go to her footage of Nazis to hear such spontaneous and thunderous cheers.
Obama has no idea what he is talking about. He talks in platitudes similar to those delivered across time to crowds that demand no content; no requirement other than the words themselves landing on ears awaiting their haring hairs to movement. When you remove his teleprompter he is not only human, he is a mere politician, searching for what he thinks needs to be said at that moment in time.
This is a man who is not particularly bright but speaks, at times, eloquently (and often with words already spoken by John Edwards) and that is very scary indeed. Does being the head of a law review make one ready to step upon the world stage? I think not.
I'm sure this doesn't sit well with sycophants for Obama. But if you were to read Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer winning book, "The Looming Tower...Al Queda and the Road to 9/11", as well as "Nuclear Jihadist" by Douglas Frantz, you would immediately remove Obama from the world stage as his rhetoric is dangerous and his will is weak.
I'd like to vote for the democrat with the biggest ba**s, and that would be Hillary; hate her as I do, before Obama. But this time, I'm voting for the survival of my children and that will be for John McCain as he has pressed buttons to send bombs. Some might not like that comment. To them I say "WAKE UP". If you read "Nuclear Jihadist" you will move from London, NYC, or DC if you live there and wonder exactly when a devastating strike will happen. A.Q. Khan ran a Walmart of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East for many years. There's not "A" genie out of the bottle...there are thousands of genies out of bottles. It's not a Brave New World, it is a very angry world where those who have been brainwashed for years have decided that like England's loss of hegemony, it is time for America to fall. I truly despise George Bush after reading two books by Kevin Phillips. But we have not been hit for over 6 years and they have been trying. They eventually will succeed. Then who do you want at the helm, a skinny Tiger Woods to sit down and look at the Hitler in Iran and the pot-bellied pig from N. Korea, or do you want John McCain with a twitch and a temper?
Never in our history has it been so plain that after this election we might well be saying, "Forgive them Father....they know not what they just did"
LearnedObserver
March 6, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh! "Selected audiences" of 10-15,000 in major arenas!! "a man who is not particularly bright"!!! "a skinny Tiger Woods!!!! For a minute there I thought you were serious, but then I caught on!!!!!
March 6, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pity you can't see that Obama has no clothes, no depth, and is indeed a crook. Look into the eyes of Michele Obama and see just how cold that heart and soul truly is. She makes Hillary look warm by comparison.
Now of course you can provide us with the answer as to his accomplishments in office, right? I'll check back in a week or so. You have time. Perhaps he'll come up with one while I wait.
LearnedObserver
March 6, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor against Rezko? This is too good to be true. The Messiah is going to be put on a cross!
By the time Rezko is done squealing, he will admit, for a plea deal, that his lot price influenced Obama's deal on the house.
And for the unwashed, THAT is against senate rules. Let me remind you all Obamaites what is legal and what is not:
"The three-term CT Republican governor (Rowland)resigned in July 2004 amid a corruption investigation and impeachment inquiry, then pleaded guilty the following December to one count of conspiracy to steal honest services, a combination of mail and tax fraud. He admitted accepting more than $100,000 in vacations and chartered trips to Las Vegas from a state contractor and a charter jet company that received a state tax break".
There is ZERO difference between Obama's land deal and Rowland's acepting services. When Fitzgeral is done with this, the super delegates will give this to Hillary.
LearnedObserver
March 7, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
WOW...an expose' that pierces through the Messiah's breast plate has silenced the crowd.
Get out the wood...this false prophet is going on the cross!
Listen carefully as you are going to hear, "Mr. Rezko's memory is flawed if not outright lying".
LearnedObserver
March 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW...an expose' that pierces through the Messiah's breast plate has silenced the crowd.
Get out the wood...this false prophet is going on the cross!
Listen carefully as you are going to hear, "Mr. Rezko's memory is flawed if not outright lying".
LearnedObserver
March 7, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Key quote from the Chicago Tribune which knows this story best and has investigated this for two years:
"That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,745313.story
March 17, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
36 C.F.R. 67.7 (2001) Guidelines for Alteration To Historic Buildings and New Construction (Commission on Chicago Landmarks) standard (1): A property shall be used for its historical purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
A picture is worth 1000 words- look at the picture of the lot and side yard. There is no way this could be subdivided for building without changing the historical characteristic. Show me one other similar historical property in the City of Chicago with a concrete fence around it, that was subdivided and sold off in this fashion. In the first place, the good doctor that sold the property would have never ever listed this as two lots unless he had a deal with Michelle in the works. In the second place, Michelle could not have subdivided the property. This is why she put it into a land trust, which converts the real property interest to a personal property interest.
Once the doctor and Michelle made the deal, they had to figure out a way to make it look legit. To do that they needed to list the property through the Multiple Listing Service that realtors in Chicago use. They convince the doctor he will get s total of 2.3 million if he lists the property under its legal description (lots 5, and 6) My first question is- do you think that anyone would ever buy the street lot with about 15 feet to build on and even if you could, you would have to make the building conform to the historical property next door? No you say, but you are curious about that mysterious offer to buy the Rezco lot. Fair question.
Rezco was freezing out the doctor. The offer to purchase the Rezco lot was from a straw man employed by Rezco. When the straw man made a full priced $650,000 offer, by MLS rules, they had to say that there was a sale in progress and show that on the MLS listing- and take it off the market. If the straw man buys this lot from the doctor, the house will never sell.
Michelle is so confident that this house is hers that she sells her condo before she makes her offer.
But the doctor screams bloody murder and points to the clause that the property has to be sold together. So Rezco offers to match the straw man's offer and shortly thereafter, the doctor gets the offer from Obama for 1.65. This 1.65 is conditioned upon the doctor shutting his mouth and because he works at the same hospital as Michelle, he thinks it is a good idea.
The 10 feet fence had to do with the fact that Rezco needed cash in his present situation and his deal was to put in 5.5 and Michelle 1.75m. My guess is that no one ever figured that anyone would know about the transaction that went through the land trust. The $100,000 was simply a way in which his Rezco's wife could funnel some cash to the family. When the deal became public, they had to make up some excuse to get that money to Rezco. The 10 feet side year sale has a few holes too.
1. The fence was purchased by Rezco and never paid for. It was Obama that needed a fence of the same type as the fence that surrounded the property before. But if they put that in, it would have been extremely costly to do so. Not only was it costly to do so, but it would have forced an easement across Obama's lot. That would have created another problem for any buyer.
2. The second problem they had was that the supposed sale of 10' never took place except in the press. The sale was through the land trust and no one can look at that. The fence is also on the old lot line. You will never see it because it is in the land trust. Oh the check might be there, but since Rezco's lawyer now owns the property, there is attorney client privilege to content with.
Boneheaded is not the word. He allowed his wife to orchestrate this purchase which was obviously intended as a way in which he could buy a 2.5 million house for a net of 1.75 while allowing 100,000 to be diverted to Rezco.
It is also interesting that we now know about his total control over some of our local hospitals. This raises the additional question of Michelle's pay increase. Was the University of Chicago Hospital pressured?
Now while I do not believe that Mr. Obama had a clue, I think we must presume that 6+ years on the Landmark Commission by Michelle, would have made her knowledgable about this type of transaction.
April 29, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink