No Time To Let Up On Obama
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
In the spirit of unity, hope, change and an overarching sense of warmth and fuzziness, I thought about writing something conciliatory about president-elect Barack Obama.
But nah. Let's dig in right off Jump Street.
Let me pose a hypothetical.[[In-content Ad]]Let's say the American Civil Liberties Union, on the Thursday before the election, filed an ethics complaint against John McCain.
Let's say in the complaint, lodged formally with Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Vice Chairman John Cornyn, they allege that McCain accepted a gift worth more than $50 in violation of the United States Senate "Gift Rule," Rule 35.1(a) and failed to disclose the gifts on his personal financial disclosure report(s) as required by Rule 34.
Now let me ask a couple questions - and please, answer honestly. Do you suppose that would have been news? Do you suppose you might have seen that on CNN or any of the networks?
Oh yeah. You would have seen it - over and over and over.
The truth of the matter is, my hypothetical - with names changed to obscure the guilty - is precisely what happened on the Thursday before the election.
The American Conservative Union filed an ethics complaint against O. (In keeping with my long-standing tradition of using a single letter to identify George Bush as "W," I will refer heretofore to President-elect Barack Obama as "O.")
The group alleges exactly what you read above - that O took a gift worth more than $50 and failed to report it in violation of U.S. Senate ethics rules.
Well, did he or didn't he? I don't know.
But since the mainstream media hasn't bothered to report any of this, I thought I would present portions of the complaint to readers and let them decide. (Go here: www.conservative.org/pressroom/2008/documents/ACUGiftRuleComplaintSenBarackObamaTEXTonly.doc to download a copy for yourself. Or just Google American Conservative Union and Rezko.)
"This complaint centers on the circumstances surrounding the June 15, 2005, purchase by Sen. Obama and his wife, Michelle, of their current residence at 5046 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60615 ("the Greenwood mansion"), and the simultaneous purchase of the adjoining property ("the side yard") - which had been the Greenwood mansion's yard - by Mrs. Rita Rezko, the wife of Mr. Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
"In light of mounting facts contained in press reports and the public record, including an Oct. 25, 2008, report in Newsweek magazine and a civil complaint filed on Oct. 16, 2008, in Illinois state court, sufficient information exists to demonstrate that Sen. Obama solicited, received, and accepted a gift greater than $50 from Mr. and Mrs. Rezko, and Sen. Obama failed to disclose this gift.
Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko have been friends for nearly 20 years. ...
"Mr. Rezko was recently convicted in federal court on multiple counts of influence peddling, including bribery and fraud, related to his extraordinary access to Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration. ...
"Before the Obamas purchased the Greenwood mansion, Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko toured the property together. On Jan. 23, 2005, when the Obamas submitted a contract to purchase the Greenwood mansion ... they could not afford to purchase both the Greenwood mansion and the side yard. In 2006, when the Chicago media began asking questions about the home purchase, Sen. Obama said that he could not afford to purchase the side yard; that buying the mansion itself was 'already a stretch.'
"Historically, the side yard (5050 Greenwood Ave.) had been considered the yard of the mansion, and as a result, the two parcels of land had traditionally been sold together. Indeed, the side yard is surrounded by a large wrought iron fence and can only be accessed through the Greenwood mansion.
"The sellers ... apparently wanted the parcels to go to settlement at the same time. On June 15, 2005, the Obamas paid $1.65 million for the Greenwood mansion, and Mrs. Rezko bought the side yard for $625,000.
"The sale of the Greenwood mansion, which resulted in a unilateral benefit to Sen. Obama, is in and of itself an impermissible 'gift' under Rule 35.1(a). As the Oct. 25, 2008, Newsweek article describes, 'Rezko's willingness to pay an inflated price for the lot next door to Obama was a financial favor to him. Obama ... later returned the favor by paying the $104,000 price for the side strip (one sixth of Rezko's lot) when his own November 2005 appraisal only valued the strip at $40,000.' According to the facts alleged in the Oct. 16, 2008, civil complaint, the side yard's value may have been fraudulently overstated by more than $125,000. Because the sellers faced an Obama offer that was $300,000 less than the initial asking price, the Rezkos could arguably make the transaction more palatable to the sellers by paying considerably more for the side yard than it was worth. ...
"The Obamas received additional benefits - besides the financial favor - as a result of the Rezkos' purchase of the side yard. Clearly, if a friend or associate did not purchase the side yard, Sen. Obama and his family would face two unfortunate consequences. First, they would own a Chicago mansion with absolutely no yard. Second, an independent purchaser - a stranger - might decide to build a new structure on the side yard. ...
"Furthermore, the sale of the side yard to a stranger would substantially diminish any opportunity for the Obamas to purchase the side yard in the future. As it happened, Mrs. Rezko purchased the property, and Sen. Obama did in fact maintain and use the side yard. And, five months after the initial transaction, Sen. Obama in fact availed himself of the opportunity to purchase part of the side yard from the Rezkos. Soon after the purchase of the 10-foot wide strip of the side yard, Sen. Obama received an additional gift when the Rezkos paid for a new $14,000 wrought iron fence to surround the Obamas' new side yard."
The complaint goes on to point out how O, as a State Senator, wrote multiple letters on behalf of Rezko's bid to get 14 million tax dollars to fund development of an apartment building and how Obama sponsored or co-sponsored at least eight pieces of legislation that could have benefitted Rezko's development efforts through public financing.
The Oct. 16 civil complaint referenced was filed by a former Illinois bank official, Kenneth J. Connor, now claiming whistleblower status. He says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for that side yard.
In the complaint, he says that his reappraisal of the side yard was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document.
The complaint says bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations and state banking regulation violations.
Aw, shucks, people. Never mind. None of this is news.
I'm gonna grab my guitar, build a campfire down by the lake and start singing "Kumbayah." Anybody want to stop by and hold hands?
Latest News
E-Editions
In the spirit of unity, hope, change and an overarching sense of warmth and fuzziness, I thought about writing something conciliatory about president-elect Barack Obama.
But nah. Let's dig in right off Jump Street.
Let me pose a hypothetical.[[In-content Ad]]Let's say the American Civil Liberties Union, on the Thursday before the election, filed an ethics complaint against John McCain.
Let's say in the complaint, lodged formally with Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Vice Chairman John Cornyn, they allege that McCain accepted a gift worth more than $50 in violation of the United States Senate "Gift Rule," Rule 35.1(a) and failed to disclose the gifts on his personal financial disclosure report(s) as required by Rule 34.
Now let me ask a couple questions - and please, answer honestly. Do you suppose that would have been news? Do you suppose you might have seen that on CNN or any of the networks?
Oh yeah. You would have seen it - over and over and over.
The truth of the matter is, my hypothetical - with names changed to obscure the guilty - is precisely what happened on the Thursday before the election.
The American Conservative Union filed an ethics complaint against O. (In keeping with my long-standing tradition of using a single letter to identify George Bush as "W," I will refer heretofore to President-elect Barack Obama as "O.")
The group alleges exactly what you read above - that O took a gift worth more than $50 and failed to report it in violation of U.S. Senate ethics rules.
Well, did he or didn't he? I don't know.
But since the mainstream media hasn't bothered to report any of this, I thought I would present portions of the complaint to readers and let them decide. (Go here: www.conservative.org/pressroom/2008/documents/ACUGiftRuleComplaintSenBarackObamaTEXTonly.doc to download a copy for yourself. Or just Google American Conservative Union and Rezko.)
"This complaint centers on the circumstances surrounding the June 15, 2005, purchase by Sen. Obama and his wife, Michelle, of their current residence at 5046 Greenwood Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60615 ("the Greenwood mansion"), and the simultaneous purchase of the adjoining property ("the side yard") - which had been the Greenwood mansion's yard - by Mrs. Rita Rezko, the wife of Mr. Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
"In light of mounting facts contained in press reports and the public record, including an Oct. 25, 2008, report in Newsweek magazine and a civil complaint filed on Oct. 16, 2008, in Illinois state court, sufficient information exists to demonstrate that Sen. Obama solicited, received, and accepted a gift greater than $50 from Mr. and Mrs. Rezko, and Sen. Obama failed to disclose this gift.
Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko have been friends for nearly 20 years. ...
"Mr. Rezko was recently convicted in federal court on multiple counts of influence peddling, including bribery and fraud, related to his extraordinary access to Illinois Governor Blagojevich's administration. ...
"Before the Obamas purchased the Greenwood mansion, Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko toured the property together. On Jan. 23, 2005, when the Obamas submitted a contract to purchase the Greenwood mansion ... they could not afford to purchase both the Greenwood mansion and the side yard. In 2006, when the Chicago media began asking questions about the home purchase, Sen. Obama said that he could not afford to purchase the side yard; that buying the mansion itself was 'already a stretch.'
"Historically, the side yard (5050 Greenwood Ave.) had been considered the yard of the mansion, and as a result, the two parcels of land had traditionally been sold together. Indeed, the side yard is surrounded by a large wrought iron fence and can only be accessed through the Greenwood mansion.
"The sellers ... apparently wanted the parcels to go to settlement at the same time. On June 15, 2005, the Obamas paid $1.65 million for the Greenwood mansion, and Mrs. Rezko bought the side yard for $625,000.
"The sale of the Greenwood mansion, which resulted in a unilateral benefit to Sen. Obama, is in and of itself an impermissible 'gift' under Rule 35.1(a). As the Oct. 25, 2008, Newsweek article describes, 'Rezko's willingness to pay an inflated price for the lot next door to Obama was a financial favor to him. Obama ... later returned the favor by paying the $104,000 price for the side strip (one sixth of Rezko's lot) when his own November 2005 appraisal only valued the strip at $40,000.' According to the facts alleged in the Oct. 16, 2008, civil complaint, the side yard's value may have been fraudulently overstated by more than $125,000. Because the sellers faced an Obama offer that was $300,000 less than the initial asking price, the Rezkos could arguably make the transaction more palatable to the sellers by paying considerably more for the side yard than it was worth. ...
"The Obamas received additional benefits - besides the financial favor - as a result of the Rezkos' purchase of the side yard. Clearly, if a friend or associate did not purchase the side yard, Sen. Obama and his family would face two unfortunate consequences. First, they would own a Chicago mansion with absolutely no yard. Second, an independent purchaser - a stranger - might decide to build a new structure on the side yard. ...
"Furthermore, the sale of the side yard to a stranger would substantially diminish any opportunity for the Obamas to purchase the side yard in the future. As it happened, Mrs. Rezko purchased the property, and Sen. Obama did in fact maintain and use the side yard. And, five months after the initial transaction, Sen. Obama in fact availed himself of the opportunity to purchase part of the side yard from the Rezkos. Soon after the purchase of the 10-foot wide strip of the side yard, Sen. Obama received an additional gift when the Rezkos paid for a new $14,000 wrought iron fence to surround the Obamas' new side yard."
The complaint goes on to point out how O, as a State Senator, wrote multiple letters on behalf of Rezko's bid to get 14 million tax dollars to fund development of an apartment building and how Obama sponsored or co-sponsored at least eight pieces of legislation that could have benefitted Rezko's development efforts through public financing.
The Oct. 16 civil complaint referenced was filed by a former Illinois bank official, Kenneth J. Connor, now claiming whistleblower status. He says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for that side yard.
In the complaint, he says that his reappraisal of the side yard was replaced with a higher one and that he was fired when he questioned the document.
The complaint says bank officials could be guilty of making false statements, willfully overvaluing property, bank fraud, witness retaliation, willful violation of a lawful subpoena, FDIC violations and state banking regulation violations.
Aw, shucks, people. Never mind. None of this is news.
I'm gonna grab my guitar, build a campfire down by the lake and start singing "Kumbayah." Anybody want to stop by and hold hands?
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092