---------------------------------------------------------
Good, bad or indifferent the news headlines are going to carry this. And no matter who does the spinning it will fix in the American electorates mind the Obama-crook connection. No one paid a bit of attention when the story broke the first time. Nobody will avoid exposure. I am sure the Obama camp is way ahead on this, but I'm stumped as to how you counter it, or if you even try. He may just re-use his admission of it being a 'boneheaded mistake. But that doesn't mix well with 'experience' issues and rezko doesn't mix well with an 'honesty' no crooks message either...as the King of Siam would say "It's a puzzlement.
Obama had the land valued when he wanted to buy part of the lot.
Posted by aquart
""I told them if you can spare another 5 or 10 feet, I'd be happy to purchase it from you," Obama said. "They came back and said they could sell us up to 10 feet."
Using a standard formula, Obama's appraiser estimated the 1,500-square-foot portion at a market value of $40,500.
But Obama felt it would be fair to pay the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of their land. The sale closed in January 2006."
<
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0611010... >
One-sixth of Rezko's lot was worth $40,500. Six-sixths would therefore be worth $243,000. Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for a lot worth $243,000. Got it now? That is NOT full asking price. That's $382,000 TOO MUCH. Coincidentally, right next door, Obama is BUYING a house for $300,000 LESS than the asking price. Then he pays Rezko $64,000 TOO MUCH for the sixth of the lot he's adding to his property. If you can't smell the stench you haven't got a sense of smell.
I am sick with disappointment and I don't even like the guy. But I did think it would still be okay if he got in. Now I know that isn't true.
The first time this came up(at least nationally) Obama quickly admitted that it was an error, and called it a "bone-headed mistake"! Good response right? I thought so too, at the time. Then I spent some time following and looking at the thing. That response is tacit admission that he knew going in that the deal was 'tainted'. Bone-headed mistakes, in fact any mistake is something that could have been avoided with fore-thought. And a well educated person, especially one in the legal field is a master at using and understanding the language...he KNEW Rezko was simply buying a future IOU from a politician, Obama knew that as well.
Now let's spin it that Obama knew what Rezko was after, the IOU, but had no intentions of paying up when the marker was called: That is the lowest of thievery, that is fraud...it does not matter if its a pact with the devil, you shake hands and you live up to the deal...it's called integrity and honesty...otherwise it is known as fraud and theft.
Second spin Obama really didn't use 'bone-headed mistake' as I posited, but he simply meant the deal was just a piece of stupid karma that happens...'shit happens'. Okay, that kind of works on the surface. But it relies on the reader believing that Obama was unawares that the guy he was dealing with was a well known Chicago/Illinois shady character who made donations to politicians, lobbied them regularly and seemed to profit nicely by doing so...this is Chicago, Illinois this is the place you get your PHD in crooked politics. And Obama would ask us to believe that he, an ambitious young politican, newly elected to the State Legislature, was unawares that he was handling one of the better known 'pit vipers' of Illinois politics?
I rest my case. Let the trial begin.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
