Blago scandal: Rahm Emanuel and Jesse Jackson Jr face new revelations: Timesonline

[SUSkinsFan]

There, I fixed it.

Now how about you address some of the points I made?

[TrumanB]

There, I fixed it.

Now how about you address some of the points I made?

I don't address "maybes".

[TheGoodBits]

Please, stop with the name calling. Your post has been reported.

This is a common pattern with you Truman. Trust me I've seen how you do it. You constantly post the most off the wall partisan BS you can find on the web, let people play with it for awhile, pick out little snipets of people's posts that you can make ridiculous arguments about, then belabor them until either the person you are arguing with says "**** it I'm done with this," or ends up calling you a moron.

I know because I fell into your little trap before. It is seriously getting beyond OLD. The months you were banned from ES were so much more pleasant... So seriously, consider not continuing with your little game or consider not posting anymore. I am fed up with it, and I know plenty of other people on here are as well. You can play the innocent victim card all you want, but all of us know what is really going on here. So cut it out.

[Larry]

I don't address "maybes".

You don't address them?

You live in them!

[SUSkinsFan]

I don't address "maybes".

The way I read that is "I don't address posts that can prove me and my conspiracy theories wrong, therefore I avoid them instead of engaging in meaningful debate".

Does that sound about right to you?

[Jumbo]

Sounds to me like Barack Obama might be a better negotiator then Tony Rezko and his wife. Maybe Rezko didn't negotiate, maybe he asked how much it was and cut a check.

Maybe the house Obama bought didn't have any other interested buyers so the owner had to play ball, whereas the other lot had 10 people interested in it so the owner didn't have to negotiate.

The point it, YOU DON'T KNOW. Stop acting like you do.

You're not breaking any rules at this point, but keep it under control brike (and I hope you're not back to reporting every little thing that isn't a rule-break like you did for awhile, Truman).

[Jumbo]

When there was only a page and a half to this thread I typed and was going to post this:

Truman, just fwiw, if you wish your voice to matter much, which I assume you must given your activity level, you would likely fare better if you cease making such a consistent cartoon of yourself that only the tiniest number among an equally rabid mindset can find any value in your comments, other than as an object of ridicule.

So far your nemesis (Obama not Larry) has been coming off very well overall, actually quite impressive compared to the last transitioning. But just give your foes some time and keep your powder dry. Given the nature of the political beast in America, you should inevitably find a buck in your sights instead of excitedly firing prematurely at nothing more than the wind rustling the bush.

Right now you are rivaling 81ArtMonk as the guy most often rejected by even his own ideological fellows.

But I didn't post it then, and since then I can say that when I wrote "the tiniest number among an equally rabid mindset" I had three people in mind out of all the conservative/moderate/independent/libetarian posters I'm used to seeing in political threads, and two of them have joined the party.

And continuing the new trademark of clowning himself in the tags as well as his threads, Truman has authored the impressive "obama = nixon x 10."

Boy, '72 was my first presidential vote and both candiates left a lot to be desired (I think Truman was around 9 at the time). But if there was ever a self-destructive credibility-debilitating comment worthy of special attention, making the "obama = nixon x 10" call at this point would be a true contender for the honor. I'll hope you're just being silly.

Truman, not that it matters, but I have a relatively benign spot for you for some reason (and an even bigger one for IHOP) but IMO you really do make a spectacle of your worldview. But that is perfectly legit, mine is just one more opinion.

I doubt that anyone in politics is free of sin, and I don't remember the last president who managed to go a term without being effectively charged if not convicted with some serious failings in conduct as well as policy. I don't expect Obama to be the first to escape such turbulence. But regarding this topic, there could hardly be a better testimonial of Obama and staff's lack of meaningful connection (to rational thought) then Governor Corrupto's own spicy invectives hurled at the pres-elect and his transition team.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[Larry]

No, 1/7 of Rezko's price is $89,285, not $104,500. :doh: Or, is that the "old" math.

You are correct. I misread the calculator when I checked the math.

Nonetheless, these are three public, above board, real estate transactions. And all three of them appear to have been conducted for fair, market, prices.

There's no crime here. Not even something suspicious. (At least, nothing that's been accused. I mean, if somebody wants to try to claim that Obama didn't really pay for the house, that somebody else did, then there'd be a scandal. But nobody's even made that accusation.)

Only reason people like you are trying to spin something out of this is "Look! Obama once did something that was completely legal, honest, and completely documented, with some guy who did something dishonest, years later".

[Jumbo]

Please, stop with the name calling. Your post has been reported.

Just in case you missed it, given the context and the way he worded it, it didn't violate the rules. If he had said "you moron" that would have been different. It has always been ok on ES when someone makes posts that many reasonable readers would find idiotic or moronic, those words may be used in describing the matter if tied to the context of the posts and phrased as other than a direct insult. But he was warned anyway and has handled it. Now back to the show. :cool:

[SC_RedskinsFan]

Now back to the show. :cool:

I thought this was a train wreck :whoknows:

[SUSkinsFan]

I thought this was a train wreck :whoknows:

I don't think it should be called a trainwreck JUST yet. We have to wait for Truman to come back and rebut the points we have made.

[Larry]

I don't think it should be called a trainwreck JUST yet. We have to wait for Truman to come back and rebut the points we have made.

Or let it drop, and go back to watching him try to smear Obama, when the only evidence concerning Obama is the crook, cursing the fact that Obama isn't dirty.

That was fun, too.

[IHOPSkins]

.....Truman, not that it matters, but I have a relatively benign spot for you for some reason (and an even bigger one for IHOP).....

I benign you too Jumbo

Relatively Big Hug

[DjTj]

I think that every TrumanB thread should just be greeted with this:

No way Obama wins Virginia.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=5693273&postcount=382

[Burgold]

I don't address "maybes".

Oh come on! What is this thread if it isn't about maybes...

Maybe Emanual was involved?

Maybe these unsurfaced shenanigans will soil Obama's years in office?

Maybe Jackson was involved?

This thread is about nothing, but maybes. The only facts available to us is that the Governor was pissed that Obama and his people didn't want to play ball.

[aREDSKIN]

You are correct. I misread the calculator when I checked the math.

Nonetheless, these are three public, above board, real estate transactions. And all three of them appear to have been conducted for fair, market, prices.

There's no crime here. Not even something suspicious. (At least, nothing that's been accused. I mean, if somebody wants to try to claim that Obama didn't really pay for the house, that somebody else did, then there'd be a scandal. But nobody's even made that accusation.)

Only reason people like you are trying to spin something out of this is "Look! Obama once did something that was completely legal, honest, and completely documented, with some guy who did something dishonest, years later".

LOL Larry still flinging the leftist crapola. Here's another source other than "public Records" or the so gentle and kind enablers known as the msm.

Fair warning it's long and complicated but if one really wants to know how it's done in Chi town here is one

Clever Real Estate Strategies for Politicians

©2008 J.T. Galt Ω

The story about Senator Obama’s house purchase is well known. On June 15, 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama closed on a new house in the historic Kenwood district of Chicago for $1,650,000, or $300,000 below the listed asking price. On the same day, Rita Rezko, the wife of Tony Rezko, closed on the adjacent vacant lot for $625,000, which was the full listed asking price. The Obamas subsequently purchased a 1,500-sqft strip of land from the Rezkos on January 11, 2006 for $104,166, increasing the side lot buffer between their properties.

The media confronted Senator Obama about these transactions because Tony Rezko was under federal investigation at the time for political pay-to-play schemes. In 2008, Rezko was convicted of fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery for government business. During his press conferences, Senator Obama insisted that he did not coordinate his purchase with Rezko in any manner:

“Look, I bought a house. He bought a piece of property next to the house, and that

transaction was entirely separate, as I said it was negotiated entirely separately. It

wasn’t something that we were coordinating in any sort of fashion, in terms of the actual

transactions themselves, there was no quid pro quo”

Senator Obama, Sun-Times Interview Excepts, November 7, 2006

“the house purchase was negotiated between ourselves and the seller. It was not

contingent on the lot. The lot had nothing to do with the sale of the house”

Senator Obama, Transcript of Sun-Times Interview, March 15, 2008

“there was simply no connection between our purchase of the house, the price of the

house and the purchase of the lot”

Senator Obama, Transcript of Chicago Tribune Interview, March 16, 2008

Ultimately, the Chicago and the mainstream media accepted Senator Obama’s explanation of events. In the meantime, the political blogosphere tried to keep the story alive but no one was able to prove any direct connection between the purchases. As difficult as it is to believe, major facts have been misreported and crucial third party information has never been examined.

Documented evidence proves that Senator Obama and Tony Rezko coordinated their purchases as well as the relative values of the house and the lot. Significant economic value was transferred between the properties after the execution of the purchase agreements and prior to the closings on June 15, 2005. Furthermore, this transfer fully explains Senator Obama’s reason for buying the extra strip of land. In sum, Senator Obama would not have been able to purchase the house at such a large discount if Rezko had not purchased the adjacent lot.

So, how is this possible after all of this time?

Property History

The story begins on July 19, 2000 when Lakeside Bank Trust #10-1985 sold a newly rehabbed mansion for $1,650,000. The buyers were Mr. Frederick E. Wondisford and Ms. Sally Radovick, husband and wife, who were new professors at the University of Chicago. The seller via the trust was Citilife Developments, LLC, which was a real estate development firm controlled by F. Scott Winslow. (Cook County Recorder of Deeds documents #99085286, #99085287 and #00661600)

Contrary to mainstream media reports, the Wondisfords did not buy the adjacent vacant lot at that time nor did they intend to buy it. They were worried, however, about Winslow’s future development plans for the property. The lot was zoned R5 multifamily, and they believed that a multifamily development next to their high priced mansion would severely reduce its value. As a condition of their purchase agreement, the Wondisfords insisted on a restrictive covenant on the vacant lot, permanently limiting its future development to a single-family residence. Winslow agreed to this restriction, and his trust filed a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Record at the closing. (CCRD document #00603539)

After closing on the house, Winslow and the Wondisfords changed their respective minds about the vacant lot. Through an entirely separate transaction, the Wondisfords bought the vacant lot for $415,000 on August 16, 2000. The Wondisfords did not receive a discount on the vacant lot for their prior purchase of the house. As a general rule of thumb, real estate developers estimate the cost of land at approximately twenty-five percent of the final value of a project. Based upon its value as a deed-restricted R1 single-family lot, the Wondisfords paid market value for the lot when compared to the sales price of the house. (CCRD document #00650070)

The Wondisfords owned the house and the vacant lot under different forms of legal ownership and they did not release the restrictive covenant, which was written to ‘run with the land’. If they removed the restrictive covenant, the Wondisfords might have increased the value of the vacant lot but they would have simultaneously decreased the value of the house. The overall economic effect would have probably been negative due to the landmark status of the properties. At minimum, it would not have been worth the risk without a specific development plan.

House and Lot Hunting

By August 2004, the Wondisfords received a job offer from another university and they planned to move. They hired Donna Schwan with MetroPro Realty as their agent, and she placed the house on the market for $1,950,000 on August 6, 2004.

Within her description of the property, Schwan mentioned at the end of the remarks section that the vacant lot was sold separately. She did not enter an asking price for the land, and there is no evidence that she separately listed the land at that time. The Wondisfords intended on selling the house first with the restrictive covenant in place and then offering the vacant lot as an upgrade. If the house buyer did not want the vacant lot, the Wondisfords planned to sell the land to a single-family developer based upon the sales price of the house.

The Wondisfords continued to market the house throughout the fall and winter, but they did not get an acceptable offer. Like many sellers, they were probably getting a little antsy but they were not particularly desperate. They stuck to the original asking price rather than lowering it to motivate potential purchasers.

In January 2005, agent Miriam Zeltzerman with Urban Search of Chicago brought Michelle Obama to the house. Zeltzerman scheduled this showing even though the asking price was outside of the Obamas targeted price range. Mrs. Obama loved the house and Zeltzerman subsequently scheduled a follow-up appointment for Senator Obama and a friend, Tony Rezko.

According to Senator Obama, Rezko knew Scott Winslow and he spoke to him about the properties prior to the house tour. Rezko shared what he learned about the properties with Senator Obama and asked him if was interested in the vacant lot. Senator Obama said the house was “already a stretch” and he was not interested in the land. Apparently, Rezko expressed interest in the lot at that point but they did not discuss the matter any further. After this meeting, Senator Obama was adamant that they independently negotiated their contracts.

Based upon the documents released by Senator Obama, the Obamas negotiated with the Wondisfords on the house through their agent between January 15 and January 23. On January 23, they reached an agreement for $1,650,000 with a mortgage contingency date of February 17. Senator Obama also said in a 2006 interview that “the lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the conditions set by the sellers”. Furthermore, Senator Obama said Rezko paid the full listing price because there was already a competing bid on the land for the same amount and he could not have paid less for it.

The problem with this explanation is the land listing and the restrictive covenant. Journalists misinterpreted the former because they did not know about the existence of the latter.

House and Lot Transactions

When Senator Obama and Rezko met at the property in early to mid-January, Senator Obama told Rezko that he loved the house but he could not really afford it. Senator Obama expressed some concern about selling his existing condo, having enough money for the down payment, and financing the balance of the purchase price. Senator Obama and Rezko discussed these issues and they worked on a plan for Senator Obama to buy the house and for Rezko to buy the land.

However, there was a catch. Rezko wanted to release the restrictive covenant because it would make the land a little more attractive. While the landmark commission might limit any development plan, future developers would still have more options under the actual R5 multifamily zoning than the deed-restricted R1 single-family zoning. Thus, Rezko could mitigate his potential loss in the deal.

Senator Obama expressed some concern about releasing the restrictive covenant. Like the Wondisfords, he was worried that a multifamily development next to his high price mansion would negatively affect the value of the house. Senator Obama and Rezko then discussed methods for increasing the side yard between the properties, and Rezko agreed to sell the Obamas a strip of land after the closings.

At that point, one of them appears to have come up with an idea to list the vacant lot for sale. Schwan listed the land for sale on January 19, 2005, which was after the property tours and after the start of the negotiations. She offered a single-family site to residential developers for $625,000. She clearly listed the land by its effective zoning under the restriction rather than by its actual multifamily zoning. Since at least 1998, the actual zoning on these properties has always been R5 / RM5 multifamily.

As further explained below, the purpose of the listing is only consistent with an attempt to ‘test the market’ for a residential developer who was willing to buy the vacant lot with the restriction in place. In this scenario, the land would have been developed as a single-family residence. While Rezko eventually paid $625,000 for the lot, they did not need someone to pay the full amount because the Obamas would no longer needed to purchase the strip of land. The final cost for the Obamas would have been the same and Rezko would not have needed to buy the vacant lot. They had plenty of time to market the land while they secured the financing for the deals.

Remember, Senator Obama said the land sold first. In truth, it was actively marketed during the Obamas mortgage contingency period. The media simply misinterpreted the land listing data. Since the journalists covering this story were unaware of the restrictive covenant and its influence on the property zoning, the only item in the listing that mattered to them was the price.

Despite the marketing efforts, they never received an acceptable offer for the land as a single-family development site because it was overpriced for this purpose. Rezko therefore moved forward with his commitment to purchase the land. The Obamas then placed their condo on the market, eventually receiving an offer with a closing date prior to their closing date on the house.

With all of the deal points in place, the Wondisfords executed an Abrogation Agreement on April 1, 2005. This agreement effectively released the restrictive covenant on the land, allowing a multifamily development on the vacant lot once again. In the simplest of terms, this agreement decreased the value of the house and increased the value of the vacant lot during the transaction period. As a matter of ethics and law, the Wondisfords could not have released the restrictive covenant without the Obamas written approval. The Obamas had been under contract since late January, and the removal of a restrictive covenant was a major change to the condition of the property. Senator Obama knew about the restrictive covenant. At his press conferences, Senator Obama misled the media when he said - there was simply no connection between our purchase of the house, the price of the house and the purchase of the lot The only other explanation is that the Wondisfords and the Rezkos conspired to release the restrictive covenant without the Obamas knowledge, a highly unlikely scenario. (CCRD document #0510503131)

The Abrogation Agreement and the land listing are highly complimentary documents, proving the importance of the restrictive covenant in these transactions. Schwan advertised for sale a single-family development site after the start of the negotiations, while the Rezkos eventually bought a multifamily development site. The purpose of the land listing was not to report a closed sale, to obtain competing bids, or even to fool the media. The listing details are inconsistent with each of these purposes. To argue otherwise, one would need to explain multiple errors in the land listing and to question the competence of the listing agent. The use of the land listing to ‘test the market’ is consistent with all of the documented facts and outcomes.

The Abrogation Agreement and the land listing completely unravel Senator Obama’s explanation of events. Senator Obama said that the land sold without the restrictive covenant prior to the house, but the Wondisfords would never have agreed to this deal without an acceptable contract on the house. Even if they made a profit on the land, they might lose more on the house if potential buyers balked at a multifamily development next door. After all, this was the reason that they insisted on the restriction when they bought the house.

Even if Senator Obama revised his timeline, and if he argued that the house sold before the land, the Wondisfords would not have sold the house without the restrictive covenant for such a steep discount without an acceptable contract on the land. While the release of the restriction clearly enhanced the value of the land, any rational developer would have wanted a contingency period to meet with the landmark commission. If the landmark commission were uncooperative, the Wondisfords would have had problems selling the land in a timely manner or for the dollars necessary to offset the reduced sales price on the house.

Furthermore, Senator Obama’s explanation that there were other offers on the properties is moot. Even if they existed, these offers would need to be compared based on price and on the status of the restrictive covenant. For example, if someone were actually willing to buy the vacant lot for $625,000 with the restriction in place, the Wondisfords would have agreed to this deal and they would have closed immediately. Such a sale would not have negatively impacted the value of the house and they would have locked in their profits.

The Wondisfords agreed to these transactions because they were coordinated, and the total price for both parcels was acceptable. They were not particularly concerned about the individual pricing of the house and the lot, but they did insist on concurrent closings on June 15, 2005 to avoid financial risk. If one of the deals did not close, they did not want to own either the house or the land under these circumstances.

Finally, these documents strongly indicate that Senator Obama and Rezko first discussed the strip of land during the property tour. Senator Obama wanted to preserve the aesthetic balance of the house by increasing the side lot buffer. Even though Rezko was under federal scrutiny at the time, Senator Obama felt compelled to move forward with this transaction to protect the value of his home.

Estimated Payment for the Restrictive Covenant

Restrictive Covenants are a well-established property right, traded by landowners and recognized by the courts. In fact, restrictive covenants have been recognized in eminent domain proceedings. Similar to mineral rights or air rights, a restrictive covenant can be bought and sold separately from underlying parcel that controls the restriction. To be clear, the Wondisfords restrictive covenant had significant economic value, and Senator Obama and Rezko basically traded this property right.

Senator Obama would likely argue that he received a discount equal to the fair market value of the restrictive covenant. He would point out that the land resold twice, each time for a profit. He would ignore the highly unusual circumstances surrounding these transactions, including a sale to Rezko’s attorney, and the fact that they are completely irrelevant. The future increase or decrease in the property value is meaningless. Senator Obama had an ethical duty to obtain an appraisal on the restrictive covenant when he bought the house, which was supposedly his reason for obtaining the appraisal on the strip of land.

While any retroactive valuation of the restrictive covenant would be highly controversial, one can fairly estimate the amount that Rezko actually paid for the release of the restriction. The key is to identify and to use actual arms-length transaction data. It is irrational to think that a singlefamily home would not appreciate while the value of single-family, deed-restricted lot next door would appreciate 50% in the same period of time. The 2005 sales prices for the house and the vacant lot were not arms-length transactions. Rather, Rezko and Senator Obama set the relative values between themselves. The Wondisfords actually took a significant loss on the house when commissions and transfer taxes are taken into account.

The only facts that are truly independent are the following: 1) the Wondisfords original purchase price of $1,650,000 for the house, 2) the Wondisfords original purchase price of $415,000 for the deed-restricted lot, and 3) the Wondisfords total required sales price of $2,275,000 for both properties. With a rational assumption that the house and the deed-restricted lot would appreciate in substantially the same manner, the house was worth approximately $1,818,000 and the vacant lot was worth about $457,000 at the time of the sale. Hence, Senator Obama should have paid $1,818,000 for the house with the restrictive covenant. In reality, Rezko paid approximately $168,000 for the release of the restriction. The net purchase prices were $1,650,000 for the house and $625,000 for the land.

When the additional strip of land is taken into consideration, Senator Obama should have paid $1,894,000 for the house and the buffer strip. Instead, he paid $1,754,000. Thus, Rezko paid approximately $140,000 for the release of the restrictive covenant in this scenario.

Depending on your approach, Rezko paid between $140,000 and $168,000 for the restrictive covenant. He purchased the land and the restrictive covenant even though he had no desire to own the property. As previously noted, he tried to avoid ownership by selling the land to a single-family developer. He also moved forward on this transaction without a contingency to meet with the landmark commission. A rational developer would have never done this deal unless he was doing a favor for the other party and he was expecting a favor in return.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama accepted this deal without an appraisal on the restrictive covenant to determine its fair market value. If these deals were above reproach, Senator Obama would have corrected the media reporting errors. Instead, he withheld information and he assisted them in distorting the facts, most notably the restrictive covenant and the land listing. In truth, Senator Obama was only able to buy the house with the help of Rezko, a man convicted of fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, Senator Obama and Rezko engaged in a complex financial transaction, calculating that the public would not appreciate the significance of their actions. Rezko was not helping a family member to purchase a house at a steep discount. As proven by his federal conviction, Rezko engaged in this behavior to gain an illegal advantage with politicians for legislation and government contracts.

Right now, the public is trying to understand the cause of the mortgage crises. They need to look no further than this deal. When politicians accept personal financial help from insiders like Rezko, they create legislation for the benefit of a select few rather than the public at large.

Such politicians also subject themselves to blackmail. According to numerous media reports, foreign nationals financed Rezko. The public must openly speculate about who holds undue influence over Senator Obama and how these people can influence domestic and foreign policy. This has nothing to do with dubious associations or even poor judgment. This is about political corruption in government. Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s actions should concern anyone who believes in a well-functioning government of the people, by the people and for the people.

We are willing to accept corruption at the highest levels of government because we believe that all politicians are corrupt. We have created a moral equivalency between politicians in general and white collar criminals in particular. Political membership is now a free pass to engage in personal enrichment at the expense of the public. While corruption in politics is nothing new, the desire to win at all costs has outstripped our fundamental belief in law and order. Hate for our opponents drives our passions and controls our judgments. We are willing to turn a blind eye to obvious malfeasance as long as our agenda will prevail.

Our principles should not stem from our policies, rather our policies should stem from our principles. Politicians are only a reflection of the people that they represent. Until we are willing to demand excellence from our leaders, we will never have any real change in this country. We will continue to have clever and charismatic politicians fulfilling their own wants and desires. Our momentary victories will be illusionary as our agendas are quickly replaced by the hidden plans of our saviors. If we are unwilling to defend our principles, we will tempt the wheel of fate one too many times and our freedoms will eventually be swept away by the hardhearted hands of history.

http://www.gopmom.com/2008/10/clever-real-estate-strategies-for-politicians/

[aREDSKIN]

Here's another diddy that goes to the mind set of the O's immediate team around him.

David Axelrod Endorsed Trading Jobs for Political Favors in 2005 Op-Ed

By Mark Impomeni

Dec 10th 2008 9:05AM

Filed Under:eDemocrats, Barack Obama, Obama Administration

President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser and chief political strategist, David Axelrod, penned an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune in 2005 that could come back to haunt Obama as the investigation into disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich goes ahead. In the article, Axelrod, who was a political adviser to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley before becoming the architect of Obama's presidential campaign, wrote that trading political jobs for favors is a perfectly acceptable practice and part of the way American democracy works.

"The democratic process is often messy. Diverse constituencies fight fiercely for their priorities. Their elected representatives use the influence they have to meet those needs, including sometimes the exchange of favors--consideration for jobs being just one."

At the time the piece was written, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had just indicted aides to Axelrod's boss, Mayor Daley, for conspiring to award city jobs as payback for favors done on the Mayor's behalf. Now, Axelrod finds himself up against Fitzgerald yet again, as his new boss, President-elect Obama, is at least tangentially involved in a very similar scandal. Fitzgerald indicted Blagojevich in part for conspiring to auction off an appointment to the United States Senate, to fill Obama's vacated seat, to the person who would do the biggest political favor for the governor.

After Blagojevich's arrest yesterday, Obama said that he knew nothing about the scheme and had not spoken to the govrrnor or anyone on his staff about the Senate seat. But that statement directly contradicts comments made by Axelrod on a local Chicago television show less than three weeks ago. Axelrod said he knew that Obama, "has spoken to the governor," about the vacancy, and added that Obama approved of some of the names of potential successors on the governor's list. Axelrod hastily put out a statement yesterday retracting those remarks, calling them "mistaken." But that explanation hardly seems credible. Axelrod surely would have known the basic fact of whether a meeting had taken place betwen the Governor of Illinois and the President-elect. The retraction also goes against Axelrod's stated belief from his 2005 Tribune op-ed that there is nothing wrong with trading jobs for political favors. By Axelrod's reckoning, there would be no reason why Obama would not meet with Blagojevich about the vacancy.

Obama has not been directly implicated in any of Blagojevich's corrupt dealings, but the Axelrod article is a prime example of how this scandal could become focused on Obama and his aides very quickly if it is not handled properly. Obama's brief statement on the matter from yesterday was lacking. If the president-elect wants to keep hmself from getting further embroiled in the media frenzy that is sure to follow this monumental political scandal, he should hold a press conference immediately and answer questions about his relationship with Blagojevich, his conversations with him, and the role he or anyone on his staff has played in the investigation thus far.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/10/david-axelrod-endorsed-trading-jobs-for-political-favors-in-2005/

[AsburySkinsFan]

You know, when Mad Mike is agreeing and defending my assertions... and backing it up with facts you really ought to give it up. Some here are trying to convict a guy for refusing to play pattycake and be corrupt.

Some conservatives have really entered Bizzarro Land.

Like I said Burgold, we are really finding out now who REALLY hates America, because anyone who is happy that any President would be embroiled in a scandal that would hurt the Presidency and this country does not and I repeat does NOT love this country. They screamed "Country First" until they were blue in the face and now that there is the slightest deluded hint of fictitious blood in the water they are happy...who in their right mind would be happy about any of this? Good grief no one was happy about the last 8 years, why in the world would someone be happy about any of this? The answer, its because they care more about their own party ideology than the good of the nation, if they really gave a rats arse about the nation they'd be honestly hoping that NONE of the stuff they were hearing was true instead of being happy about it because now they get to retaliate. Immature, misguided, meanspirited and childish.

[dockeryfan]

For Obama to rise through Chicago politics, and remain unscathed (or relatively unscathed), is a testament to Obama. Everyone knows how corrupt the landscape is there.

Hopefully all these conspiracy theories are tantamount to my right wing tinfoil hat wearing friends telling me that Clinton "covered up" Vince Foster's suicide.

[aREDSKIN]

Like I said Burgold, we are really finding out now who REALLY hates America, because anyone who is happy that any President would be embroiled in a scandal that would hurt the Presidency and this country does not and I repeat does NOT love this country. They screamed "Country First" until they were blue in the face and now that there is the slightest deluded hint of fictitious blood in the water they are happy...who in their right mind would be happy about any of this? Good grief no one was happy about the last 8 years, why in the world would someone be happy about any of this? The answer, its because they care more about their own party ideology than the good of the nation, if they really gave a rats arse about the nation they'd be honestly hoping that NONE of the stuff they were hearing was true instead of being happy about it because now they get to retaliate. Immature, misguided, meanspirited and childish.

LOL LOL LOL man this made me laugh. Lets check out the left's circle jerk of glee club here on ES for the last 8 years shall we?? Man talk about utter hypocrisy. Man your are brazenly myopic with a slight twist.

[TrumanB]

LOL Larry still flinging the leftist crapola. Here's another source other than "public Records" or the so gentle and kind enablers known as the msm.

I'm still trying to figure out what he means by "public records". The "public records" are what got Obama in trouble to begin with because it showed shady and questionable real estate transactions that he had made.

[TrumanB]

LOL LOL LOL man this made me laugh. Lets check out the left's circle jerk of glee club here on ES for the last 8 years shall we?? Man talk about utter hypocrisy. Man your are brazenly myopic with a slight twist.

Exactly. After 8 years of "Bush is Hitler", "Impeach Bush", the left is now crying "why can't we all just get along". :doh:

[Burgold]

Here's what you don't get. Very few on the Left wanted Bush to fail. Sure, they were angry and felt ripped off when the 2000 election seemed stolen, but soon enough the bum had a 90% approval record. 90% has to include the left. Now, why did he lose that?

Blunder after blunder. Real miscue after real miscue. Whether you are talking about the economy or Katrina or Iraq or domestic spying or having high ranking administration officers convicted of outing CIA operatives, or any of a number of other very real failures. Look at the state of the country today. Look at the businesses failing, the jobs lost, our international reputation, heck... pick almost anything and you have a legitimate reason to be frustrated and the man at the top of the ticket is going to get the lionshare of the blame. Sometimes that is fair and sometimes it is not, but it is the reality that comes with the top spot.

More tellingly, Bush has done such a horrid job that Conservatives have made a huge effort to disown him and say he is in actuality a liberal after 6 years of touting him as a champion of Conservative causes and declaring that any word spoken against him was anti-american and damn near prosecutable treason.

In short, Bush has earned the derision he receives. Events have proven his doubters to be correct.

[Burgold]

I'm still trying to figure out what he means by "public records". The "public records" are what got Obama in trouble to begin with because it showed shady and questionable real estate transactions that he had made.

How did Obama "get in trouble" was he arrested? Was he indicted? Did he go to jail? Was he kicked out of office? Was he disbarred? Did he receive a vote of no confidence and lose his elected office?

Define "get in trouble"

[AsburySkinsFan]

LOL LOL LOL man this made me laugh. Lets check out the left's circle jerk of glee club here on ES for the last 8 years shall we?? Man talk about utter hypocrisy. Man your are brazenly myopic with a slight twist.

If there were any who thought that it was a good thing that Bush was acting the way he was and doing the things he was doing and happy about the trouble that was going on then they were and are wrong, and if you're happy like Truman said he is then you're wrong too. No one should be happy about any of this, and if you are then shame on you.

But, then we don't understand shame in our culture, so carry on.