Obama

Rich on the Black Vote from 11 months Ago

 February 27, 2007

Next, you “experts” assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.

Wrong again.

In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they ‘’break late.’’

Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama’s own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ‘’breaking’’ in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.

This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn’t start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.

Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African-American voters. Obama is far less known. It’s perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.

To recap, because I know you’re all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don’t automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.

I hope this helps.

And me from November 20th 

Iowa and New Hampshire have no significant black population (outside of Waterloo).  South Carolina is the first state with significant black population that holds a primary and it isn’t  until January 26th meaning it’ll be towards the end of December that  you start to get a sense of what the black population will be doing–and that might carry over until the first week of January given the holidays

Pollster showed the first lead for Obama around January 7th.  And black votes kept breaking so the result is hardly surprising.

Rezko Primer II: Political Donations

The best tally of political donations from Rezko, Rezko companies (Illinois allows corporate donations), and Rezko allies was done by the Sun-Times which tallied the donations and determined there were a total of $168,000 to Obama from Rezko and his associates. Scroll down to the pdf on the left side of the story to see the details.

As of January 20th, Obama had divsested himself of $84,350 of those donations with the latest divested including:

From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of Glenview entrepreneur Joseph Aramanda, the story said.

==============

*$10,500 from Michel Malek, a neurologist and former investor in Rezko Enterprises.

*$2,000 from Fortunee Massuda, a founder of a chain of foot and ankle clinics and a former investor in Rezko Enterprises.

*$3,000 from Imad Almanaseer, a real estate and fast-food impresario and former member of LARC Realty, a Rezko business.

Obama hasn’t given all money related to Rezko back apparently arguing some of it was independent of Rezko–a statement that is probably true given some of the donors knew him independently of Rezko. However, it stands in contrast to Clinton’s decision to divest every dollar tied to Norman Hsu in December. Other’s who had donations returned include Rezko’s companies and direct contributions and donations from:

Michael Winter, who gave $3,000 to Obama’s Senate campaign in June 2003, and Myron Cherry, who gave $500 to Obama in July 2004, have been publicly identified as Individuals “G” and “H,” respectively, in one case against Rezko.

Sun Times June 25, 2007

Cherry is a Clinton supporter, but obviously not tied to her with a connection through Rezko. Cherry has also cooperated with the investigation and is one of the few people to publicly discuss his involvment.

Given there is only about $80,000 left with any tie to Rezko, it would probably be politically smart to donate that amount.


Wrong Messenger

Sending out the guy who created the school uniforms and V-Chip strategy to argue that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the direction of the country is just a little bit absurd:

“President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century.”

The Rezko Primer

—Updated 3/19/08

Since Rezko has become an issue in the Presidential race, I am creating a sort of primer for the relationship between Obama and Rezko over the years. It will only touch on the issues with Rezko and his indictments as related to Obama as I don’t have nearly the time it would take to show Rezko’s involvement with Blagojevich and others.

I. Early Connections–Job Offer

II. Donations to Campaigns

III. Legal work on projects Rezko was involved

IV. Letters of Support for projects Rezko was involved

V. Intern-son of Rezko ally/Obama donor

VI. House Purchase

VII. Land Strip Purchase from Rezko

VIII. Landscaping and Property Maintenance Arrangement

IX: Lot History and Loose Ends

Chicago Tribune on the 3/14/08 Interview on Rezko:

Full Transcript

Audio

Kass

Story

Editorial

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko — including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama’s explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama’s bumper.

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.

***

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we’ve been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 — shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama’s house purchase — that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him — and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday’s session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama’s critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn’t happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don’t know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, “see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing … and who they can trust.” Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by “high ethical standards,” he said. Although “that doesn’t excuse the mistake I made here.”

Obama should have had Friday’s discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn’t, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it’s like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information — too eager to “control the narrative.”

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

Chicago Sun-Times on the 3/14/08 Interview on Rezko:

Full Transcript

Audio

Story

Mark Brown

Mary Mitchell

Carol Marin

Lynn Sweet

The best synopsis of the Obama Rezko relationship was done by the Trib on January 23rd:

Both men declined to comment on their once-close friendship. Obama has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko and has insisted that he never used his office to benefit Rezko.

Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko’s recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.

But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.

Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it “boneheaded” because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.

Rezko is tied to nearly every major politician in Illinois over the last couple decades going back to Jim Edgar under whom he received his first state contract. Rezko’s reputation as a slumlord largely got started after Obama was not practicing law full time and was largely dealt with by the City of Chicago and not state government entities.

It’s fair to say Obama used poor judgment in buying the strip of land from Rezko, but of the many ties to Rezko in Illinois, a two key things stand out:

  1. Obama did no favors such as providing money from a Member Initiative to Rezko
  2. Obama did not receive any personal benefits from Rezko

The dumbest thing about the relationship from Obama’s standpoint is that one of the most squeaky clean pols in Illinois didn’t think before buying a 10 foot strip of land for above assessed value from a guy about to be indicted. In Illinois that’s amazing, in the Presidential race, it’s the best personal record of any of the candidates.

A Very Good Critique of the Present Votes

Rich has made a point I didn’t quite know how to reach about Obama and the Present votes

* The rest ended up on the cutting-room floor. What I tried to get across was that Obama kinda hovered over everything when he was in Springfield. He seemed to play by his own rules, which he appeared to believe were more thoughtful or ethical than everyone else’s.

So, to his mind, voting “Present” on some of those bills was wholly justified. Whether it was part of an organized effort by abortion rights groups, or because he thought something in the bill was unconstitutional, or whatever, I think he believed he was doing the right thing.

The problem is that he has to answer for those votes in the real world, not in his own mind. Clinton is using a very common political attack. It’s happened many times before in Illinois, and will happen again.

The bottom line is Obama likes to think too much. He’s enamored with his own intellect to the point where he does things that don’t make political sense, like voting in the US Senate against an interest rate cap on credit cards because the cap was too high. Well, that was the only cap on the table. He should’ve known he was gonna get raked on that one.

He talks about bringing people together and finding consensus, but that usually means taking a somewhat distasteful vote when the final product hits the bricks. Too often, he gets all high-minded and decides he won’t play the game he signed up for.

This cuts both ways–the conceit allows him to think he can transform things, but also gets in his way with others at the same time.

Former Chicago NOW President Switches to Obama from Clinton

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/OVuMYKs8iJs" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Most of us in Illinois already knew this…(update for clarity–we knew the content, not that she was switching–okay, maybe someone in Illinois did or did not know she was switching, but I didn’t)
More from her on Obama’s effort on South Dakota:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/ILVLzbBcs8A" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Rezko Primer VIII. Landscaping and Property Maintenance Arrangement

The oddest part of the story between Obama and Rezko is that Obama paid for lawn care and coordinated work on a fence between the properties:

The Obamas bought the house in June 2005 for $1.65 million–some $300,000 less than the asking price–and secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust.

Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought the adjoining lot the same day, paying the full $625,000 asking price with the help of a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey. The Rezkos declined to comment for this article.

The Obamas wanted a fence between the parcels. They hired an attorney and architects within a month of their purchase to seek guidance about the fence from the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

Michelle Obama had served on the commission from 1998 to March 2005, and she contacted the staff about the fence. On July 15, 2005, a city landmarks deputy commissioner, Brian Goeken, sent a long e-mail to Michelle Obama saying he had gone out one evening to look at the house. He listed suggestions for obtaining a permit for the fence.

Goeken declined to comment for this article.

Over the next six months, the Obamas’ architect had several conversations with city officials about whether to relocate portions of the existing fence or build a new, compatible one.

Architect Wil Taubert said in an interview that he dealt only with the Obamas.

“I knew somebody owned the corner but I never asked who it was,” Taubert said.

Though the Obamas laid the groundwork, Rezko agreed to build and pay for the $14,000 fence that runs along their property line.

Fence required by city

Obama said Rezko paid for the fence because a city ordinance compelled Rezko to fence the line between his vacant lot and their house. He added that both men agreed there were broader reasons for a fence.

“I had had a conversation with him in which I indicated that it probably was important for us to have a separation of the properties because the property was all one piece, it wasn’t really demarcated, and I did think that it was important for there not to be any perception whatsoever that somehow I was having any use of their property,” Obama said.

“Partly because Michelle had already been on Landmarks, partly because we’re well-known neighbors … I felt it was important to make sure that all the T’s were crossed and I’s were dotted in terms of compliance with landmarks,” he said. “I thought it would be embarrassing if somehow whatever fence was erected didn’t comply.”

Obama said he funded the architectural and legal work because “if somebody walked by, they would assume that it was on my property and so it was important from my perspective that it be done right.”

Obama said he didn’t know exactly how much he spent on the architectural, landscaping and legal work that enabled Rezko to acquire a fence permit in January 2006.

“My suspicion is that it would probably be a couple of thousand dollars. On the architectural side it might be more,” he said. “I think legal fees were a couple thousand.”

More…

That month, the fabricator hired by Rezko began building the fence, which sits immediately on top of the property line. Five months later, in May, Advance Welding & Construction sent one of Rezko’s companies a $14,300 invoice that stated, “All work is completed.”

Obama said he and his family have never used the Rezko yard–even for a brief picnic or Frisbee game. But Obama said he pays his landscaper to mow Rezko’s 7,500-square-foot yard.

A person can’t enter the Rezko lot from the street–but Obama’s groundskeeper gets in through the gate that opens from Obama’s lot.

Service mows both lawns

“Right now my landscaper who comes and does all my work, I have asked him to go ahead and mow the lawn on the other side,” Obama said.

“My intention was to have the landscaper figure out some pro-rata cost for that mowing and send that bill to Rezko,” Obama said. “I just haven’t had time to do it.”

The lawn-mowing bill that he plans to send Rezko “can’t be more than three or four hundred, a thousand dollars,” Obama added.

The bill for the new fence has yet to be paid, according to Advance President Raymond Oshana and Michael Sreenan, an attorney who represented the Rezkos in transactions pertaining to the fence and garden lot.

That may be because Tony Rezko is embroiled in debt and business difficulties as well as legal trouble. The federal charges against Rezko include allegations that he defrauded a lender to keep one business venture afloat.

But the garden lot may yet be developed.

Sreenan and a Rezko company accountant in October formed a corporation that Sreenan said will try to purchase the lot from Rita Rezko and build there.

While no sale has taken place, “We’re hoping to move ahead on development,” Sreenan said.

It was premature to discuss details, Sreenan said, but one thing was sure about this potential venture: “It will be entirely separate from Mr. Rezko.”

Why this aspect of the situation is the oddest is that as time continued, it became more clear that Rezko was in a lot of trouble.  Previous to the middle of 2005, the degree of Rezko’s problems were somewhat unclear.  The actual actions that the indictments cover center around the 2003-2005 time range. The earliest actions Rezko was indicted for include pay to play schemes immediately after Rod Blagojevich took office in early 2003.

While there was a cloud of suspicion in 2005, the situation was pretty unclear–by 2006 it became clear there was a wide ranging investigation of Rezko and he would probably be indicted.  As such, continuing the relationship even in such a case where the financial outlays were Obamas and it involved being paid back was poor judgment as Obama has admitted.  However, there is no evidence of Obama benefiting from the relationship on a personal or political level over that of a typical relationship with a donor.

Rezko Primer VII. Land Strip Purchase from Rezko

UPDATED 3/17/08 to include Sun-Times and Tribune interviews and documents released by the campaign.

Strip of Land Documents 

 Fence Documents

Part of the requirement in the neighborhood was that an empty lot would have to be fenced from the housed lot due to Landmarks rules in Chicago. To make the lot aesthetically pleasing, Obama asked Rezko to sell a portion of the vacant lot to him to create a reasonable buffer:

To preserve the aesthetic balance, Obama also wanted to put some space between his house and the proposed fence, so he personally asked Tony Rezko if they would sell a portion of their lot without restricting their ability to build in the future.

“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.

Obama’s answer to the Sun-Times:

Q: Did Rezko have an appraisal performed for the 10-foot strip?

A: I had an appraisal conducted by Howard B. Richter & Associates on November 21, 2005.

Q: Was there a negotiation? Did he have an asking price, or did he just say, whatever you think is fair?

A: I proposed to pay on the basis of proportionality. Since the strip composed one-sixth of the entire lot, I would pay one-sixth of the purchase price of the lot. I offered this to Mr. Rezko and he accepted it.

Again, no one has brought forth any information to contradict Obama’s version including reporters who looked into the deal.

Tribune Discussion of Strip and Fence:

The next phase then is the strip of land that we bought from Tony Rezko that was adjacent to our part of the property. The way this came up, I wanted a fence to be erected between the two properties. Tony agreed to build that fence. The reason he agreed was that it was under, under municipal code, it was his obligation to build that fence and create a separation.

And during the discussions about building that fence, I suggested to him, you know, I would be interested potentially in purchasing either 5 or 10 feet, a 5- or 10-foot strip alongside that property to widen my side yard. And, but I said that “if it turned out that you had, if that was of interest to you and the rest of the lot was perfectly developable, then that’s something that I would be interested in.”

So I threw that out in a relatively casual way. This was not a big deal to us. It was not something that was critical to our property values, but it was something that I thought would be nice because I’ve got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And in fact, the way this came up was there was a, originally a play, big swing-set thing that went across both properties that we had to tear down, and constructing a new one, there wasn’t going be enough room. And so that’s what triggered my thinking that it would be nice to widen the lot.

He said that he would have his developer or surveyor, whatever the term is, come out and take a look and see how big the property would be and how much space they would need in terms to develop it to see if it would be something that would be buyable.

I, in turn, asked my attorney to do an appraisal of what it would, what a fair price for that 10-foot strip would be or a 5-foot strip would be to make sure that I paid fair market value for such a transaction. The appraisal actually came back relatively low, something like $40,000.

And that was attributable to the fact that there just aren’t comps for a 10-foot strip of land and that was noted by the appraiser. The appraisal—which is, by the way, all these documents are in there—the appraisal did note that the other parcel, Rezko’s remaining parcel, would be fully developable if he sold this to me. And so rather than pay the appraised price, I paid one-sixth of the cost of his property. He agreed to sell that 10-foot strip.

And, you know, I made sure that all the paperwork was done, and since we’re in a landmark’s district, we contacted the [Chicago] Landmarks Commission; in fact Michelle had once served on the Landmarks Commission board. She called somebody she knew down there to find out what regulations or requirements existed in terms of both erecting a fence and any other T’s that had to be crossed or I’s that had to be dotted. And so then the transaction went forward.

Now, last point I’ll make—I know I’ve been long-winded, but I figured I’d try to disgorge as much as this as possible and then you guys can ask questions.

The obvious question is, and this has been posed to me by the Tribune and by other news outlets: If you knew this guy was already under a cloud of suspicion or was having problems, why would you go through with a transaction with him?

The answer is that, at least with respect to the purchase of the house: He wasn’t involved in the purchase of my house, and at that time, the news around Rezko’s problems had not elevated to the levels that they did later.

This was somebody that I had known for a very long time. He had never asked me for favors and had not done me any favors. And so, although in looking backward, I can see how it could have raised issues, it didn’t at the time for me. And that can be considered a smaller lapse of judgment.

A larger lapse of judgment existed when it came to the strip of property. Because at that time, it became clear that Rezko was getting into bigger problems, and this was now a business transaction with him. And this is what I’ve referred to as a “bone-headed” move.

But it is in the context of somebody, again, that I had known for a long time, who I was now a neighbor with, who, frankly, I did not think was doing me a favor because I was paying a substantial amount of money, and he continued to have a developable piece of property. In retrospect, this was an error, and I’ve said so publicly and repeatedly.

This was a mistake on my part. The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems, the mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics, and I should not have engaged in a business dealing with him in general. And I’ve acknowledged that, because it’s raised the appearance of impropriety.

Having said that, the transaction was aboveboard. I paid the full market price for it, and I don’t think there have been any suggestions that I did not. So with that, let me stop.

Sun-Times transcript:

Let me just wrap up by talking about the strip of land. I wanted to build a fence between the properties so it wouldn’t be perceived I was using this lot. Tony agreed to pay for the erection of a fence. I agreed to make sure that all the legal issues were resolved because it’s a landmark district, so there were questions about what the fencing could look like and so forth. During discussions about the fence, I mentioned to Tony that I might be interested in a 5- to 10 feet of that strip if it was still developable because, even breaking this in half, it was still a larger lot than most Chicago lots. It was a 60-foot lot. So, he said, “I might be interested in that,” and “Let me talk to my folks about if they relinquished a strip, will it impede any development capacity on the lot,” and it was determined that it wasn’t.

I, in the meantime, asked for an appraisal about because I didn’t want to be perceived as paying below an appraisal price. The appraisal came back, actually, at $40,000, partly because the appraiser said it’s hard to figure out a piece of property that can’t be developed on. And my view was I either paid the appraisal price or one-sixth of what Tony paid for land, whichever was higher, because I wanted to make sure it was fair and he was getting fair market value. So I paid one-sixth of the price, which was approximately $104,000, and then the fence was erected.

Let me close by saying this. During the time that I was purchasing the house, there were some noises about Tony having potential problems. But they . . . hadn’t risen to the attention that they ultimately would. And I viewed him as . . . purchasing the lot as a friend purchasing a lot, somebody who was interested in real estate development and who was experienced in real estate development.

It is possible that he purchased that lot partly out of business interests and the belief it would appreciate, partly out of a desire to have a lot next to me. I can’t speak fully in terms of his motives.

But it’s fair to say at that time a red light might have gone off in my mind in terms of him purchasing his property next to mine, and the potential conflicts of interest. And I think that’s the first stage of where I wasn’t sufficiently focused on how this would look.

I think that a larger problem is me having bought the strip of land. At that point, it was clear that he was going to have some significant legal problems. But more to the point, even if he hadn’t‚ he was a contributor and somebody who was doing business with the state. For me to enter into a business transaction with him was a bad idea. I’ve said repeatedly it was a boneheaded move, and a mistake that I regret.

Rezko Primer VI. House Purchase

Updated 3/17/2008 with Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times interviews

The 94 page pdf of documents related to the sale of the house. Includes Listing Ad, Trust Agreement, Mortgage and other goodies.

Obama bought a house on the same day as Rezko’s wife bought a vacant lot which had been subdivided from the main lot. Obama answered a series of questions from the Sun-Times on the deal:

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.

While news sources have never explicitly said there were any discrepancies in Obama’s version, there have been no stories based on actual investigations that have disputed the story. Given the number of Chicago reporters who have spent time on the story it’s safe to say at this point that Obama’s version is accurate.

Hence, there are four key points to what happened:

  1. The land was subdivided before listing
  2. The winning bids were the highest bids for both properties
  3. Different Realtors handled the purchases for both plots
  4. The owners wanted to sell quickly

One thing that is clear is that Rezko wanted to get in Obama’s good graces, but there is no evidence Obama received a favor.

Frederic Wondisford confirmed several points of this in an e-mail provided to the campaign:

Burton said a campaign adviser discussed the sale with Wondisford by phone and followed up with an e-mail to Wondisford repeating his points. Wondisford responded: “I confirm that the three points below are accurate,” according to the e-mail, provided to Bloomberg News and authenticated through records shown by the adviser.

The e-mail says that the sellers “did not offer or give the Obamas a `discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.” It also says that “in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,” Obama and his wife, Michelle, “made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.”

Wondisford has declined to talk directly about the matter.

Three Bids

The Obamas submitted three bids: $1.3 million on Jan. 15, 2005; $1.5 million on Jan. 21; and $1.65 million on Jan. 23, according to a copy of the sale contract shown to Bloomberg News. Obama received more than $1.2 million in book royalties and a book advance in 2005, the year he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate, his financial disclosure statement shows.

The e-mail between Wondisford and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had “stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.” In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000.

The e-mail is contained in the 94 page pdf document linked above.

Tribune Interview statement:

So just fast-forward, I win the Senate’s race, I, we go to Washington because of the good fortune of publicity, my book starts selling. I had more money, our kids are growing and we become interested in moving out of our condo and buying a house.

So at that point, I contact our broker, who had helped us buy our condo, a woman named Miriam Zeltzerman and who was with a real estate agency called Urban Search, which is very prominent in the Hyde Park area. And told her that we’d like to list our condominium for sale and that we were interested in buying a new house.

I was in Washington much of this time so this is the beginning of 2005, or somewhere in 2005. So Michelle started taking some tours with Miriam. And at some point ends up being shown the house which we now live in, on [street name redacted]. Michelle calls me and says, “I’m in, I love this house, but it’s more than we were talking about paying for, but I really think it’s a great house, you should go take a look at it.”

I did, and I also thought it was a terrific house. And what the seller, the seller’s broker described to me was that the way that the house was configured, it had this huge yard on the side, on the south side of the lot, that the lot had already been divided in half, that the lot was being sold separately, that somebody already had an option on the lot, so that that was not part in any way of the transaction. And that the house, was selling, was listed at $1.9 [million], but in conversations with my broker afterward, she said that although the lot had an option on it, the house had been on the market for over, for quite some time.

I think originally the sellers had tried to sell it as just in, in one big chunk, both the lot and the house, and it had been on the market for at least six months, maybe close to a year. They hadn’t been successful. That’s part of the reason why, I think, they divided it. The lot was apparently fairly attractive, and they had gotten offers on that. The house was the thing that was difficult for them to sell, and it was owned by a doctor, a pair of doctors named the Wondisfords who were at the University of Chicago. They had to join Johns Hopkins because they had gotten a new job, so they were moving and so they were anxious to sell.

So, I then discuss it with Michelle as well as our broker and said, “Well, maybe it’s worthwhile us putting down an offer, but we should get a better sense of what it’s valued.” And our broker said, “You certainly shouldn’t be paying the list price on this because it might be a little bit overpriced.” And so at that point, Michelle and I talked about who did we know that knew Kenwood who might have a sense of these properties.

And that’s how Tony Rezko’s name came up, because he was an active developer in that area and owned lots in that area and had done development in that area.

So I don’t know, I don’t remember exactly how this transpired, whether it was in a face-to-face meeting or I called Tony or what have you, but I said, “I’d like your opinion on this property.”

He asked where it was, I told him, he said, “Well I’m going to be in the neighborhood. I might go by and take a look at it. I think he may have done so prior to me being with him, but I don’t recall exactly how that conversation transpired.

The bottom line was that he said, well, he called me back or we spoke and he said, “If you want me to take a look at it, I’d be willing to go into the house and take a look at it.”

I said, “Great.” I arranged with my broker, he and I looked at the house, he said, “This looks like a very sturdy house.”

And at that point, I think, he had found out, perhaps because he knew the seller’s broker, that the person who was, who had the option on the lot was also the person who had renovated this house six years ago. It had gone through a gut renovation six years ago. That that individual was a former employee of Tony’s who was also a fellow developer.

Tony asked me during the course of one of these conversations why I might not be interested in buying the lot and keep the property intact. And I said that, you know, it wasn’t worth it to us to spend an extra $600,000 or so on a lot next door when Michelle and I were really interested in the house. So he said, “Well, I might be interested in purchasing the lot,” and my response was, “That would be fine.”

And my thinking at the time—and this is just to sort of flag this, this is an area where I can see sort of a lapse in judgment where I could have said, “You know, I’m not sure that’s a great idea”—but my view at the time, when he expressed an interest, was that he was a developer in this area that owned lots, that he thought it was going to be a good investment.

And my interest, or my motivation was, here’s somebody that I knew who, if this lot was being developed, it’d be better to have somebody who knew, who I knew, who, you know, would give me schedules, keep me apprised of what was taking place and so forth. So I didn’t object.

He then said, “Well, let me look into it since I know the guy who has the option on the lot.” And in the meantime we simply proceeded to then get an inspector to come in, take a look at the house; it passed inspection. And so we decided to put down a sales contract.

We put down a sales contract, or we put down an offer of $1.3 [million]. The sellers came back, they lowered their offer. I think it was to $1.8 [million] or $1.75 [million].

We raised our offer to five, uh $1.5 [million], and all this was done through our respective brokers. The issue of the lot and the lot price never came up.

It was never an issue in our purchase. Tony Rezko was not involved in those negotiations. Those were negotiations between our brokers, and we ended up agreeing to a sale price of $1.65 [million].

I have in the documents a statement by the sellers indicating that at no time did they ever consider the lot in relation to the price of the house, that they did not offer a discount on the house, that there was no contingency with respect to our house purchase relative to the lot. There was simply no connection between our purchase of the house and our price of the house and the sale of the lot.

As I indicated before, the lot was already for sale. I wasn’t involved in that transaction. I’m not aware of how Tony ended up getting the option from the previous individual. That was not something that I was concerned with. I didn’t know exactly what the price was that he paid. I knew that there had been an option there for 600 and something dollars because the broker had told me when I had first gone to visit.

But the notion, now, this is the area where I want to be absolutely clear, because, frankly, this has appeared in various, in various reports, or the intimation, and John [Kass, Tribune columnist], you’ve been very specific about this, this notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid or was somehow involved in that is simply not true. And the sellers have confirmed that it is simply not true.

Rezko bought this, and I don’t know his motives, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that he perhaps thought that it would be nice to have a lot next to me, he perhaps thought that this would strengthen our relationship, he could have even thought he was doing me a favor.

But I also think that he thought that he was engaging in a sound business practice and that he was going to develop the property. And the, the fact that there wasn’t some steep discount, is in part born out by the fact that he has now, he transferred the lot to his attorney, his attorney put it on the market and it appears that a sale is about to be consummated on the property for a price that I think reflects the legitimate value of that lot. So that’s the house purchase.

And so the intimation that somehow the purchase of my house was somehow aided by Tony Rezko is simply factually incorrect, and it has been confirmed by the sellers that that is factually incorrect.

Sun-Times:

Fast-forward to shortly after I’m inaugurated. Or sworn in. I’m getting ahead of myself. Because of the attention I received during Senate campaign and the convention, my book sold well, I came into a sizeable amount of money that allowed us to move. We’d outgrown our condominium. We contacted our real estate broker, Miriam Zeltzerman. She was the person who sold us our condo in East View Park. Told her we were interested in putting our condo on the market, interested in having her show us houses in the area. She and Michelle went off and probably looked at 10 houses. One of the last ones they looked at was the house on Greenwood, which Michelle fell in love with and was actually slightly above, well it was above, what we’d originally intended to pay.

Michelle called me. She says, “I saw this house, I really like it, it’s more than we originally budgeted for. I’d like you to take a look at it.”

So I went with Miriam to take a look at the house. It was a wonderful house. The asking price was $1.9 [million].

The sellers, the Wondisfords, had originally sought a higher price because it was not just the house, but because there was a lot that was basically the side yard. They had put that on the market in quite some fashion for a very long time. It had not sold. So they decided to break it up, separate the lot, which was fully developable from the house. So they were listing house separately at 1.9. The lot already had option on it when we went to look at it. The reason the lots were separated was because of seller, and the two transactions were entirely separate.

We come back. I talk to the broker and she says you should probably give a lower offer. You never know. They’ve had this on the market. I think the house had been on the market for six months. And the sellers, the Wondisfords, wanted to make sure they sold both, not just one.

The lot was not their difficulty. Their difficulty was selling the house. This is what my broker told me. . . . Michelle and I talk about it, and we decide is there somebody that we should – there are some people we should talk to who know more about the real estate market in Kenwood – because we had never purchased a house before. Tony was a developer in that area, was active in that area, owned lots in that area and had developed in that area. So, I don’t recall whether I called him, whether we saw each other, whether it was something that was already scheduled, I don’t remember the exact circumstances. But I did bring to his attention, we are looking at this house. We are interested in it. I’d love for us to give your opinion on it.

He got the address, and I think he may have looked at it separate and apart from me when he was in the neighborhood. . . . The upshot is that we found out the person who had renovated the house six years earlier was also the person who had an option on the lot, and that person had worked for Rezko, and so he knew him and was an active developer. So Tony then arranged with me and Miriam Zeltzerman to take a look at the house because I wanted to get a basic assessment. He took a look at it with me. Miriam Zeltzerman was there. And he asked me about the lot, and I said, there’s already an option on it. It’s not something we want to purchase. It’s not worth it to us to spend an extra $600,000 on a lot. We’re just gonna buy the house.

He, at that point, expressed some interest potentially in purchasing the lot.

So my response was, and I’ll be honest with you, my basic view at that time was having somebody who I knew, a friend of mine, who would be developing the lot if he could, would be great. It would be somebody who we know. If we had problems or there were complaints, etc . . .

We then put in a bid for $1.3 [million]. The sellers came back. We went up to $1.5 [million]. Ultimately, we settled on a price of $1.65 [million].

This was conducted entirely between my broker and the seller’s broker. [Discussion of the documents brought by Obama about the house.] Tony Rezko had nothing to do with negotiating the price of the house. The lot was an entirely separate transaction. There’s confirmation from the seller that this idea that I somehow got a discount on the property is simply not true. It is not factually correct. We negotiated it in the same way that housing transactions are negotiated all across the country. And I should add, by the way, in terms of the Wondisfords, just to give a little context, the reason this appears in an email that first comes from our lawyer and we had not put this out earlier, is that they did not want to be caught up in a media circus. They’re very private people. They were the ones who originally contacted us when the story first broke. . .

Rezko Primer V. Intern-son of Rezko ally/Obama donor

One of the hundreds of interns Obama hired was tied to a Rezko partner and that man was identified as having been directed to donate money to Obama’s US Senate campaign:

John Aramanda served as an intern for Obama for about a month in 2005, said Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs. His father is Joseph Aramanda, a Rezko business associate who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal corruption case against Rezko. Aramanda has contributed $11,500 to Obama since 2000, Gibbs said.

“Mr. Rezko did provide a recommendation for John Aramanda,” Gibbs said. “I think that it’s fairly obvious that a few-week internship is not anything of benefit to Mr. Rezko or any of his businesses.”

The internship revelation comes after Obama acknowledged he erred in buying property from Rezko in January. The transaction took place when it was widely known Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office.

From the Trib the other day:

Thus far, there is little in the public record to suggest otherwise, and the few exceptions that have come to light appear minor. On Capitol Hill, Obama once gave a summer internship to the son of a Rezko business associate on Rezko’s recommendation. Earlier, as a state senator, Obama was one of several South Side political and community leaders who wrote state and city officials urging approval of public funding for a senior housing project involving Rezko.

But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.

Obama publicly apologized for his 2005 property deal with Rezko, calling it “boneheaded” because Rezko was widely reported to be under grand jury investigation at the time. And Obama has given to charities $85,000 in Rezko-linked campaign contributions, including $40,035 last weekend following a published report suggesting that Rezko funneled a $10,000 donation to Obama through a business associate. Aides to Obama say the senator had no knowledge of any such scheme.

Unnamed Political Candidate

The Illinois senator isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. And there’s no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.

The allegations against Rezko that involve Obama are contained in one paragraph of a 78-page document filed last month in which prosecutors outline their corruption and fraud case against Rezko, who was also a key money man for Gov. Blagojevich and other politicians.

Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama’s name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn’t need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party’s nomination for president.

Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed “political candidate” referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in “sham” finder’s fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing “at least one other individual” to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual — in possible violation of federal election law.