And your one word answer is better than mine, because Whitewater was a money losing deal. I should have mentioned that my three words were FAR worse than this deal, since someone didn’t make it to the guard and went to ‘nam.

Ms. Rezko buys a buildable lot for 62.50/sq ft., the then-current market value.

Six months later she sells a strip of the lot for a realistic gain of 69.67/sq ft – at current market,an 11% profit, not at tax appraised value (always unrealistically low for residential property in Cook County).

Seller is required by law to build a fence. Buyer is concerned about fence design to retain landmark status of existing home. Seller pays for fence. Buyer pays for architectural design.

One year later, Seller sells the remaining buildable lot for $76.67/sq ft. – a 22.7% profit for 18 months.

A reportable gift? Not even close. Boneheaded? Perhaps.

ALABAMA NATIONAL GUARD does do it in three words.

WHITEWATER does it in one.

Of course, let’s assume the worst (cue Wayne’s World fade-out)
BP: Hey Tony, Michelle and I are trying to buy the house on Greenwood across from KAM Isaiah Israel. The side lot is separate and on the market for a developer. Why doesn’t Rezmar buy it? You know that long-term Kenwood is only going up.
TR: Yeah, I know that lot — market stinks for vacant lots right now, but being next to the new Senator can’t hurt the property value, right?
BO: As long as you don’t market it that way, OK? Michelle would have my head. Look, whatever happens to the market, if you can’t develop it, when my next book comes out I can buy it back from you at market rates. I’d rather have a basketball court there anyway.

So there it is. Boneheaded? Yep. A reportable gift? Potentially, but only if the transaction is consummated in the way above — an unexercised, illiquid option is pretty hard to value. More embarrassing if the details came out? Sure — so he sticks to “boneheaded”.

That said, Dan writes “If you think George W. Bush would have gotten away this easily with the exact same set of facts prior to being elected in 2000, then you have an argument.”

I do, and I do have an argument that consists of three words: Alabama National Guard.

You have yet to define what you perceive as “vague” on “some parts” of this. As ArchPundit has pointed out for at least the third time, Zorn sees no evidence of wrongdoing in the Obama home purchase which you perceive as “one of the seminal events” of Obama’s life. Thank you, ArchPundit, for condensing it into two sentences.

Is it my shock at your misuse of the simple word “joint” that you find insulting? Or did it insult you that someone else could create “possible scenarios?”

I am very sorry if you seem to find it insulting that independently published and verified facts keep getting in the way of your vague, innuendo-filled possible scenarios.

As to my anonymity, I’m well-known to the blog owner and have followed his ground rules for years, always posting under the same blog handle as he has requested. Sorry again.

Since I don’t want you to feel insulted by my words:
“Stop the spinsanity Dan.”

Oh, and he traded away Sammy Sosa and built a new ball stadium with public money.

Again, all legitimate activities, even if questionable on paper. I don’t seem to recall too many news outlets running inquiries into them in 2000 though.

Stop the spinsanity Dan.

Let’s see, Dan. Earlier I posted a series of published “tough questions” to which Senator Obama gave clear, detailed, understandable answers. Repeatedly. Answers which were repeated to the national media by his staff when they refused to read the Chicago coverage. Previous ownership, real estate agent names, etc. All questions and answers which long ago debunked the continued push of anti-Obama rumors.

So much for your “I know that nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question…” whine, Dan. “Asked and answered,” said the Sun-Times long ago.

All of your anti-Obama arguments have been blown out of the water with published facts.

Yet you continue with “…just a few years ago made a joint purchase of property…” Sorry, Dan. Very poor reading of the English language, Dan. TWO separate properties, PREVIOUSLY subdivided. Two SEPARATE purchases. “Joint” has a clear and legal definition. But alas, “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’” (sorry, LC)

Now you seem to vaguely imply something hugely sinister and “vague” because Senator Obama seems to remember that he was first to notice the seller was willing to sell his properties separately since they had not sold while bundled. What, pray tell, is sinister there?

Well, since you are so fond of spinning “possible scenarios,” here are two:

A family man and another dealer go into a liquidation sale at the local camper-conversion dealer who is down to his last two demos. One is a top-of–the-line conversion van, ready-to-roll; and the other is a stripped-down box. “I need to sell them both right now because I’m leaving town but nobody wants them both,” moans the seller, (and now the story splits)

Scenario 1:
“Gee,” says potential Buyer 1, “I really want the ready-to-go one but not the other one.”
“OK,” says the Dealer-buyer, “Since I develop these for a profit I’ll buy the stripped-down one.”

Scenario 2:
“Gee,” says the Dealer-buyer. “I want to buy the stripped-down one because I develop these. But I don’t have any use for the one which is already built-out – no profit.”
“Great,” says potential Buyer 1. “The top line one is perfect for me, but I’m not in the van conversion business and have no use for the other one.”

In either case, the Dealer-buyer then says to Buyer 1, “By the way, I’m going to throw away the canvas top. Do you want to buy it?”
“Only for its retail value,” replies Buyer 1, “I don’t want any special deals.”

It seems as if the anti-Obama forces will not be happy until they know what everyone had for breakfast and what color underwear they were wearing that day. SHEESH. A deal in which a seller and two individual buyers all were happy with what they got. It just can’t happen in Chicago. Obviously something sinister MUST be going on.

Saying “nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question” is so much partisan tripe.

Liberals run the same complaint about Bush getting it easy from the press (ie, “White House stenographers’ pool”).

It’s a hollow complaint because, as you’ve noted, you’re cherry-picking which media stories and which reporters you in you anti-Obama fervor choose to focus on.

You’ve made up a rationale (what you claim “to be the most logical reason”) yet when facts and reality point in a different direction you refuse to admit it.

PS: I note that many staunchly conservative partisans are whining the same rant about the media “coronation” of McCain… So much complaining, so few pixels and bytes with which to publicize it.

I have not criticized Barack about this much. Just noting what appears to me to be the most logical reason for the Rezko purchase — and Barack’s fuzziness.

I know that nobody is allowed to ask Barack a tough question even though he is on the verge of becoming president and just a few years ago made a joint purchase of property with a man accused in the biggest corruption scandal in Illinois history.

Don’t mean to interrupt the MSM’s coronation.

Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.

Wouldn’t such a sale negate Dan Curry’s “possible scenario” (which clearly came out of his [bleep] along with some cherry-scented rainbows and prancing unicorns).

I have it on high authority from unnamed sources in Chicagoland gutter politics that Dan Curry is a partisan yahoo who knows not of what he speaks, but likes to make things up as he goes along.

PS: Rezko was a bundler for Pres. Bush also… Let’s not forget that, shall we? I wonder if Dan Curry’s anonymous sources are concerned about Bush’s relationship to Rezko… (and why do those people even need to remain anonymous? there are no repercussions to naming them…)

A more likely scenario to those of us who read this news over a year ago is that there was absolutely no indication of “Barack’’s vagueness…” In fact, Obama and his spokespersons have previously given detailed answers to the Sun-Times and others.

Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?

A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.

Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?

A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.

Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?

A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.

Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?

A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. 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 condition set by the sellers.

Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?

A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller’s agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.

We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.

Q: Why did you put the property in a trust?

A: I was advised that a trust holding would afford me some privacy, which was important to me as I would be commuting from Washington to Chicago and my family would spend some part of most weeks without me.

Q: A Nov. 21, 1999, Chicago Tribune story indicates the house you bought “sits on a quarter-acre lot and will share a driveway and entrance gate with a home next door that has not yet been built.” Is this shared driveway still in the mix? Will this require further negotiations with the Rezkos?

A: The driveway is not shared with the adjacent owner. But the resident in the carriage house in the back does have an easement over it.

Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?

A: I’ve always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.

With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.

But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.

Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.

That would explain Barack’s vagueness when describing how it came about.

Again, didn’t see the WTTW interview. Surely, however, the reporters were not going to be 100 percent forthcoming in their personal opinions because they are supposed to remain publicly objective and more importantly because they are sitting next to their competitor and aren’t about to lay out their reporting direction to them.