Tale of the Tape: Hsu and Rezko

Oh ! Johnny Everdumb come out, come out where ever you are, it's time for you to sing for the DNC. There must be a silver lining somewhere with these two bums.

Tony Rezko is so nothing...He contributed to both Clinton and Obama....Let's instead talk about Clinton's Chinese ties, especially those either convicted or who pleaded guilty to Clinton campaign fraud...like John Huang and Ya Lin Trie, in addition to Hillary's 15-year association with Hsu. Do you think they were whispering sweet nothings in her ear during WalMart (“Your Chinese Home Away From Home”) board meetings???? How soon we forget the Clinton administration selling satellites to China in return for campaign donations to the 1996 reelection campaign, and who could forget that Congress voted to hold Janet Reno in contempt for failing to release Clinton documents regarding these Chinese ties....tsk tsk...Oh, by the way, did you all know that just 24 months ago (January 2006) yet another CLinton campaign committee agreed to pay $35,000 to settle an FEC lawsuit against it for hundreds of thousands of unreported campaign funds for hillary? Look it up yourself. This is all from the Washington Post....

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

****************************************
From the Speaker of the House! The most powerful female democrat.

Finally the Democratic party is waking up! Good night Hillary, goodnight

Hey!

You lefties should be very happy because Obamamania gave you almost a year of hope for socialism and Marxism, but let's face it....it's over.

Now, go get a job and with a McCain victory in Nov. you'll have low taxes and then you can blow more money on your next American hater wannabe president.... in 4 long years.

Oh, and next time try to use your [brain] and don't make it another [hussein]

Good luck!

Paulo

Re: Unity and Division

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/kosi-fan-tutte.html

Saturday, March 15, 2008
Kosi Fan Tutte: Unity and Division

Thus do they all.

A few thoughts:

There is a time in the life of a new movement when limbic outrage combines with the glimpsed promise of a new and expanded platform. The initial rush from nonentity to prominence has carried them forward together, but standing on that platform, however low or small, the view creates a burgeoning space in the self--a place of surprised importance--first that their voice is heard, then a question of deserving such a place, which becomes affirmed with each passing day that they hold their new small staff--a place where the narcissism of small differences can take over. "Can I?" The internal voice asks. So close to the emotions of the initial rush of emotions, which were felt together, this new rush of emotion must be right. If they can...if they did...if we did...so can I!

Thus do half-formed, ill-considered second revolutions often take place. The first wave was too heady to consider the splinters of emotion, ambition, pride, and how these might combine with actual ideological difference. The move forward was collective, as was the new degree of influence--but the experience of power, however slight, was individual, and could be triggered into the disparate directions seen all too often in the impulsive spatters across time that we, if noticed, call history.

The impulse--anger, wounded narcissism--comes first, quickly followed by a now slightly practiced, or at least slightly observed, ambitious idea. It is then that words and concepts are appropriated, to provide apparent substance and heft to the initial reaction--"strike" or "abuse"; "freedom" or "censorship"; or, in other similar cases, "patriotism" and "nationalism".
Thresholds are set and described after the reaction--a post hoc "it was too much" "we have had enough." Such justifications provide a new form of heady reaction--perhaps the impulse, raw and initially unmitigated, now propped up by the buttresses that follow, not only feels good...but is right!

In such ways does unity often fall apart. The smaller purposes--which we must, we must put forward upon principle, rarely consider the larger principles to which they, often moments before, were firmly committed. It creates the seemingly paradoxical but historically common situation in which a small excitement is able to fully cover a larger objective to create a blind spot, a canyon into which the blinded march with excitement, until the excitement passes, and they survey the terrain around them. We have seen this in 1917, in 1946, in 2002--three examples among countless manifestations across time. Such splinterings typically lead the electorate to search for solid ground in the midst of seeming chaos under "strong", "solid", "traditional" leadership.

Many of those who would today march into the canyon are those who decried Ralph Nader's 2000 stand--who saw the narcissism within the "principled stand", and the larger consequences that such blindness could create.

We have lived under 7 years of an Administration that can be plausibly credited to the excited, impulsive acts, narrowly bounded by limited justifications beyond which was a willed sea of darkness, of that time.

Now, in the acts of a group still fresh with the sense of a new and unexpected influence, we see this phenomenon again: moving impulsively into action, without providing even a full consideration of what it is that they call their act (a "strike" like those taken by workers who give up their jobs and pay?); without providing the evidence upon which they base their claim (to demonstrate the "abuse" would only be to repeat it--or to demonstrate their similar use of language against those that they found unsuitable or unworthy); and without--or perhaps, excitedly, with--a consideration of the consequences.

With self-importance comes actual importance. With excited, elevated action comes consideration of and responsibility for the actions.

We should all be proud of the force that we, collectively, have brought to bear on an electorate that, only a decade before, was far less informed on issues of political and personal consequence. The ease with which our voices can reach into the world can create a more powerful unity of purpose towards overarching goals that we share--or a greater and more rapid ability to splinter amongst our smaller differences.

Take a deep breath. Recognize and appreciate the importance and impact of your role--with the human responsibility that your impact now has, and without the tendency towards defense and excitement that exists in all of us. Consider your stand. Ask what you really want for yourselves and for others in the next four or eight years.

A quickly and tenuously built stand can provide a temporary, if illusory, exhilaration. However, a considered and firmly built platform provides a view that lasts for years, can see over and past the canyons--and beyond for many miles.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/kosi-fan-tutte.html

Hey!

You lefties should be very happy because Obamamania gave you almost a year of hope for socialism and Marxism, but let's face it....it's over.

Now, go get a job and with a McCain victory in Nov. you'll have low taxes and then you can blow more money on your next American hater wannabe president.... in 4 long years.

Oh, and next time try to use your [brain] and don't make it another [hussein]

Good luck!

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | March 15, 2008 8:12 PM
________________________________

I'm going to save this tripe as a text file, so that when McShrub loses in November, I can repost it and laugh at pillow like I always do.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Yeah, what's Paulo smoking and where can I get some? The ardent support for McCain is admirable, but how about trying the hip new drug called Reality? This guilt-by-association trend is transient and isn't doing much to raise the pulse of mainstream voters. Ride it out, Paulo. I hear your boy once stood at a urinal next to Judas. (Yes, that's kind of a sneaky "he's old" joke. Hey, I never claimed to be above that.)

Ya never know...

Maybe Obama, his wife and Rev. Wright can [con]vince America with-in the next 30 years that he was the real socialist deal, but for now , it's.... Hillary.

H. Clinton / H. Chavez in 2008!
(the new and improved, christian church lefty dream ticket)

Paulo

The Mouthbreathing Knuckledragging Republicans (Paulo) are fooling themselves if they think they're not going to get the same treatment this fall.

John McCain and the Rick Renzi 35-Count Indictment:

In 2006, Senator John McCain campaigned heartily for his fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi's reelection to his third term in the House of Representatives. At campaign rallies and fundraisers McCain said that Representative Renzi was an important part of the Republican Congressional delegation from Arizona and he praised Mr. Renzi's "honesty and integrity." McCain was so impressed by Mr. Renzi's virtuousness that he recruited him to serve as the co-chair of his presidential campaign in his home state.

With the recent stories about McCain using the Commerce Committee to serve the financial interests of his corporate benefactors, wouldn't it be wise for McCain to put on the GOP ticket for 2008 a man known for his "honesty and integrity?" If Sean Hannity and other choir boys in the Right's Greek Chorus are correct in their assertion that the news of McCain's past impropriety in the Senate is nothing more than a "liberal" newspaper smearing an honest politician, then I hope they stand up also for McCain's old friend and ally: the Honorable Rick Renzi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/john-mccain-and-the-rick-_b_88299.html

McCain was a Founding Member of the Keating Five:
Back in the old days, defendants in famous trials got numbers -- the Chicago Eight, the Gang of Four, the Dave Clark Five, the Daytona 500. McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."

Mafia ties:
In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.

Family Problems
McCain's adultery broke up his first marriage. His second wife Cindy, the daughter of a wealthy Budweiser beer distributor, was addicted to prescription narcotics and even stole hard drugs from a medical charity that she ran. McCain acknowledges that she didn't want him to run, and only agreed once he promised that she doesn't have to go to New Hampshire or Iowa.

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

It's almost laughable the way Hillary's team keeps bringing up the non-Rezko issue with Obama but yet no one seems to mention Hillary's fundraising pal Norman Hsu, that's gonna blow up in her face again anytime now.

Norman Hsu makes Rezko look like a minor league political wannabe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/26/hsu_raised_big_money_for_clinton_supporters/

Oh my,

JohnE. took time-off from fighting the enemy in Iraq to post.

Hey, every phoney soldier needs to take time-off.

Paulo

Oh my,

JohnE. took time-off from fighting the enemy in Iraq to post.

Hey, every phoney soldier needs to take time-off.

Paulo

It's amazing how often I see people discounting the Rezko/Obama deal as "nothing" and well "Obama's come clean". It's very convenient to think so, however with a lilttle more discerning eye you can see how shady the land deal was:

First off BO states that it was a "mistake" and "boneheaded". I am confident that implies he did something wrong.

The major point is what has not truly been shown, and that is that Rezko lost money on the real estate. Rezko bought the property for $625k. Paid costs associated with closing the deal (appraisal, fees, etc). Sold 1/6 of the land for $105k to BO. He then had it for 11 months and sold the other 5/6 for $575k. So basic math would say Rezko bought for $625k sold for $680k so $55k profit, right? No. True cost of ownership would include what you could make with the money being tied up. Even with the most basic way of saying it was a cash deal with $500k tied up that would be at 5.5% (cd return) around a $30k return. So now we are down to 25k profit. Was there a broker involved in the final sale? Probably, as I believe it was stated Rezko and Obama had the same broker. Commercial real estate (having been an investment broker for four years) would make 6% on the deal. 6% of 500k is another 30k. Oops, now we've moved into negative territory. Throw taxes in, maintenance (probably need to get the lawn mowed and stuff), any other ancillary costs and you are easily at negative 25k. Even without a broker it's a breakeven deal. So now we have a big time real estate developer who has made tens of millions of dollars bothering with a small plot of land in the city for sale purposes, not to develop (very odd in real estate), losing money, with a political ally who now has a bigger yard and who may feel as BO said that he just helped BO out. What's not to love about this real estate deal?

What developer pays full price for land to then flip it a year later for negtive or at the best even cash? Why would a big developer even waste his time? The deal was mentioned to Rezko by Obama.

It's amazing how often I see people discounting the Rezko/Obama deal as "nothing" and well "Obama's come clean". It's very convenient to think so, however with a lilttle more discerning eye you can see how shady the land deal was:

Posted by: Rick | March 15, 2008 10:11 PM

Ricky,

It isn't working because there's nothing there .

Obama sits down with the Chicago Tribune for 92 minutes to talk Rezko and gets an editorial blessing and yet the Wingnuts can't understand why their attemepted smearing of Obama isn't working?!?!:

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did....

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

Rick,

The only one's who still think there's anything big between Obama and Rezko are the willfully stupid Republicans like you and this Paulo nutjob who's on here..

Here are 10 myths debunked about Obama and Rezko:

Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: 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."

I know Obama takes credit for ...judgement but what shocks me is the lack of judgement the media shows over the weekend. Reports cover the race as if nothing happened. Is it so hard to realize that the race for the Democratic nomination is over? It shouldn't be that difficult to understand that Obama is not electable any more in November.

JohnKWilson...

What about lie #11?

There must be more than 10

Paulo

Myth #11: that the Chicago Tribune, which has all along been Obama's sponsor, would throw anything but softball questions at their protege.

******Oh Boy!******

Barack "Hussein" Obama is falling in the polls vs. Hillary and our next President, John McCain like a lead balloon.

...and the swift boaters, boats are still on dry land!

No need for Mr. Rove at this time.

Paulo

What I want to know is when we're going to see Planet Denny Hastert and Tom Delay in matching orange jump suits?

There was SADDAM HUSSAIN.

Barack Hussain Obama
did not want to remove him; Hillary voted differently.

That is Barack's claim to Presidency of the United States

Was Obama's opposition to war influenced by his Pastor?

To: JohnKWilson

When are you going to stop copying and pasting these unfounded, half true, untrue, irrelevant and poorly reasoned non answers, robot?

If Obama were as clean as you pretend, then why has he been consistently evading the press, only succumbing after 16 months of pressure? Maybe it's because his 17-plus year relationship with Rezko bespeaks a lack of a moral center of gravity... it doesn't look too good for the candidate for "change", "hope" and "transparency in government".

"There's no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko's buildings."
So you're saying your messiah is either an idiot, or indifferent to his constituency. OK, if you say so.
"A state senator doesn't deal with tenant complaints..."
But the Obama biography is all about him as a dedicated, hands-on community activist and public servant. So that's a lie. Got it.

"The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko... The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000." Time to delete this one , robot. Obama himself finally confessed to $250,000!

"Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians."
So Rezko bought other Pols besides Obama? OK, so what? How does that absolve Obama? Oh I see, it doesn't. The he's-just-as-dirty-as-everybody-else excuse is a really great defense, robot. Pure gold. Please do keep repeating that one. Please, please do!

"At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko's problems."
WRONG! It was all over the newspapers and TV for a full year by that time. So then we must conclude that Obama's either an idiot or lacking ethical standards... Oh wait, maybe it's because Obama was living in a bubble up until then and wasn't getting any of the news, right?

"...none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing."
This is as flabby as rhetoric can possibly get, and yet the Obamabots repeat it endlessly. What you actually mean to say is that no laws were broken that we know of. However anybody with with a so much as a schoolchild's grasp of moral principles can see a serious breach of ethics (that is, "actual wrongdoing"). So it's no surprise that you can't.

There is more to the Rezko relationship than the mansion deal. Furthermore there is other filth sticking to Obama besides the Rezko relationship.

Hey look, Ma... I can copy and paste too!

Oh my,JohnE. took time-off from fighting the enemy in Iraq to post.
Hey, every phoney soldier needs to take time-off.
Paulo

And what are you doing, big boy?

Rezko's trial wouldn't even be making the papers if it weren't for his relationship to Obama.

And why is this Hsu guy cuff-linked and chained? I mean, look at him. Yes, he's got nimble feet, but I don't think he's going to take anybody down (except maybe Hillary).

Newsflash to DD: Rezko also has a deep relationship to the Boy Governor. In fact hasn't the governor been ID'd as Public Official A by the Rezko judge??