Yes, explaining how legal representation is now hair splitting.

Rezko’s lawyers then and now are at Freeborn Peters. Obama worked for a firm representing the three non-profits partnering with Rezmar. He did a total of 6 hours worth of work for that deal–which is nothing in terms of legal time. That is paperwork and the such and not much more.

What is hairsplitting is trying to continue your game of 6 degrees of Tony Rezko. Obama had virtually nothing to do with the deal other than some paperwork he did for the firm early on in his career at a time when Rezko had a strong reputation with non-profit developers.

===You keep missing the point. Every time Obama and Rezko interact where an action of some sort takes place, a negotiation or a house purchase or a fundraiser, someone benefits. Sometimes Obama has benefited and sometimes Rezko has benefited.

The house purchase–no one benefited other than how they would in any transaction. The deal was not centered on both of them buying the two properties. There was already a contract on the vacant lot so who benefited in any way that wouldn’t have happened without Rezko being involved?

What makes you stupid is that you aren’t even reading the linked material, but making broad assertions that aren’t supported by the records–something I’ve spent a lot of time gathering up.

A fundraiser is by definition where the candidate benefits so I’m not sure what the point is there.

===I think you are in complete denile that Obama didn’t know he was earning political capital by completing a partnership deal that Rezko would benefit from.

And again, this is a gross misunderstanding of the entire process and corroborated statements that Obama simply did 6 hours worth of legal work. Do you know anything about legal work and what a young associate would be doing in such cases? The young associate isn’t the guy bringing people together–the parties do that and then they employ their own lawyers. This is pretty basic.

===What you keep ignoring is the fact the Obama and his employer were part of the deal making and the fact that Rezko and his parnters benefited financially from those very deals.

I’m not denying that, I’m just baffled that this is controversial. Obama hardly did any work on the deal and at the time Rezko was very popular with non-profit developers. The question is what is your point? Law firms work with clients to ensure their endeavors are profitable. That’s not controversial nor anything out of the ordinary. What is bizarre and incredibly stupid is claiming such a thing is nefarious.

==When you see Rezko later being an early and often patron of Obama it is clear that the political capital Obama earned began to show dividends – actual cash dividends.

And again, what is the quid pro quo that is wrong here? There is none. Obama did no favors for Rezko so the question is what did Obama do that was wrong?

Wow, you are such a small minded person. Calling other people stupid when you clearly can’t think outside of your own little box. Are you supposed to be a real journalist with an unbiased take on facts or are you just unabashedly an Obama apologist?

If it’s the latter, I will glad move on and leave you to your small echo chamber. I am sure it’s membership will be declining to smaller and smaller numbers until the remaining few of you all decide to share some Koolaide when reality catches up with your delusion.

If it’s the former, then you really suck at it.

You keep missing the point. Every time Obama and Rezko interact where an action of some sort takes place, a negotiation or a house purchase or a fundraiser, someone benefits. Sometimes Obama has benefited and sometimes Rezko has benefited.

I think you are in complete denile that Obama didn’t know he was earning political capital by completing a partnership deal that Rezko would benefit from. Remember Obama was already familar with Rezko and his partner after he met with them. At that point Obama’s impression of these guys was that they were successful and probably loaded. What you keep ignoring is the fact the Obama and his employer were part of the deal making and the fact that Rezko and his parnters benefited financially from those very deals.

When you see Rezko later being an early and often patron of Obama it is clear that the political capital Obama earned began to show dividends – actual cash dividends.

You certainly don’t reflect the “change we can believe in” standards that Obama professes. With supporters like you showing their true colors in blogs like this that change is getting harded to believe in.

Wow, you are stupid. No, when you represent the clients in a deal, you represent one set of clients. This is pretty simple. So Rezko would have his own lawyers. Lawyers only represent one side in an agreement to ensure the interests of their clients are taken care of–in this case that is more than one client, but not both sides. Pretty simple.

In fact, it couldn’t be any more simple. Rezko’s primary lawyers are at Freeborn Peters. This is included in the links. Try reading.

The firm didn’t represent Rezko, but represented three partnerships? That’s some fine hair splitting. Aren’t partnerships made up of individuals and wasn’t he one of the individuals in the partnership? If the partnership benefited, wouldn’t Rezko have benefited?

Davis and Rezko did become financial partners later on, sorry but you really can’t dismiss this as scattershot BS – you reported it in your posted.

Is this meant to be a real primer with actual facts or is only talking points for Obama defenders?

And if you read through the primer instead of this scattershot bullshit you pulled, you might have noticed that the firm didn’t represent Rezko, but three non-profit partners and Obama did about a total of 6 hours worth of work on the whole thing.

Keep on groovin’ ArchPundit!