Slate.com's article on "Obama's Shady Real Estate Deal" found nothing shady
Slate.com teased a December 14 article by Slate chief political correspondent John Dickerson by suggesting that the article exposed a "Shady Real Estate Deal" involving Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). In fact, the article explained there is "no evidence" that Obama did anything wrong.
The Slate.com homepage featured a link to Dickerson's article, which read: "Inside Obama's Shady Real Estate Deal." According to the article, there is a "question" as to whether Obama colluded with Democratic fundraiser Antoin Rezko in order to get "a break on the price" of a house Obama bought in Chicago in 2005. According to the Slate.com article:
Here's the question: Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase of the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break on the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal? And did Rezko never intend to develop the lot, giving Obama a nice roomy side yard, a favor which he'd call in later?
Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase, but only because a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko, who owns other properties in the South Side. He didn't arrange the joint purchase with him. He bought the house at such a good price, Obama has told the papers, because it was being unloaded in a "fire sale."
In the very next sentence, however, the report acknowledged that there is no evidence Obama did anything wrong:
There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior (though that might have been just a matter of time). Obama hasn't tried to change his story, even though Rezko is now talking to investigators.
The article itself was titled "Barackwater" -- a reference to the Clinton-era Whitewater real-estate "scandal," which gave rise to an extensive, multimillion-dollar investigation that turned up no evidence of illegality by the Clintons.
you don't hear anything more about Reid. No retractions, nothing. chirp, chirp, chirp...
You already assassinated King, why character-assassinate Obama?
"See what lies within you (white racists)?" Kramer
of pretty big generalizations.
It's only going to get uglier from here.
Just wait. How long before an ex-girlfriend of Obama's appears for her 15 minutes on Drudge or Fox News?
What another great distraction Obama's personal life will be for the political right to draw attention from the mess they've made.
From Wednesday's article on Terry Nelson: Implicated in NH phone-jamming scandal the paragraph contains the following sentence: "the degree to which Nelson was aware of Tobin's scheme is unknown..." I'll be waiting for mmfa's appology and recognition of its own gross hypocrisy.
MMFA is hypocritical because while it suggests that slate.com should not have suggested any wrongdown by Obama while it acknowledged there was no evidence of wrongdoing, mmfa itself suggested Nelson was involved in wrongdoing by using the paragraph title "Implicated in NH phone jamming scandal" whlie acknowledging that there was absolutely no evidence he was involved. Textbook hypocrisy.
You are totally, amazingly, and hilariously wrong.
For everyone's convenience, here is the link to which you are referring. I have provided it right off the bat because I am 100% confident that it clearly proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
Every accusation against Nelson is backed up by major network reporting, and even links to the actual indictments themselves. At NO time in the piece does MMFA prevaricate as to the nature of Nelson's involvement in any scandals. They state the facts, ALL the facts, and provide references.
Look for yourself.
And regarding the NH phone-jamming specifically, MMFA did it exactly right (I'll get to the difference with Slate's reporting in a second; stay with me if you can). They reported that the full extent of Nelson's involvement is, in fact, not known; but he was on the witness list for the indictment of his subordinate at the RNC. That is the very definition of fair and balanced reporting. As a likely Fox News watcher, you may be unfamiliar with the technique.
Contrast that with Slate's reporting, which provided a misleading, incendiary headline (complete with oh-so-clever "Barackwater" neologism for this non-scandal) which perpetuates the (to date) false conservative meme that Obama has skeletons in his closet; followed by an article whose content reveals that Obama is as clean as a whistle (much like Harry Reid; I too am waiting for the apology on that one.)
However, if one reads the headline, clicks the link and skims the article, one is likely to miss the fact that Obama has done nothing wrong. The meme lives, and conservative misinformation in the MSM continues unabated.
"Liberal media" indeed.
"I have exor-CIZED the demons! This house...is clear." - Ace Ventura
They reported that the full extent of Nelson's involvement is, in fact, not known; but he was on the witness list for the indictment of his subordinate at the RNC.
Equals "implicated".
Sorry, I was on a roll and forgot to include that.
No need to thank me, ma'am. It's what I do.
Heigh-ho Silver...!
Yikes! You could not be more wrong, Deeznuts.
Being on a witness list does not equal "implicated." You don't have to have a law degree to understand that.
Interestingobserver is absolutely correct.
Thank you.
And you won't look so stupid next time.
Just to clarify...these things never appear where I want them to.
you're calling other people stupid and then you say you can't figure out why the posts don't come out where you want? here's the clue. shoes beat you to the first reply to deeznuts, but since yours was directly under shoes with no indentation, that means your were also replying to deeznuts. had yours been indented under shoes, that would mean you were replying to him. took me about a half hour on here to figure that out. wow. do you vote?
im·pli·cate /ˈɪmplɪˌkeɪt/
–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to show to be also involved
2. to imply as a necessary circumstance
3. to connect or relate to intimately
Take your pick. Even the "archaic" 4th definition, to fold or twist together; intertwine; interlace, supports what I said.
Any one of those means I win.
Thanks for suggesting I look up the word. You guys make me smile.
Merely being on a witness list hardly equates to being implicated in a crime. For all we know, Nelson may have been intended to testify on information only tangentially related to the phone bank blocking. We'll probably never know since Nelson never testified, a fact omitted in the MMFA topic.
As I recall, MMFA had 3 other points in that topic which were reasonable. However, on that point they goofed.
However, this topic is quite reasonable. Do you agree?
Sorry, folks, but MMFA is being less than honest here.
MMFA: "the article explained there is 'no evidence' that Obama did anything wrong."
Sorry. The article doesn't say that. The "no evidence" line in the article doesn't connect to Obama not doing anything wrong.
The article says, "There's no evidence that the senator is fibbing or that the indicted fund-raiser asked anything in return for his neighborly behavior."
But that's not the issue! This is a classic bait-and-switch by MMFA!
The issue is (quoting the article directly), "Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase of the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break on the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal?"
This is doshonesty by MMFA.
In addition, even Obama himself acknowledges the deal appears fishy!
See? Even Obama admits the deal was a "mistake".
The bottom line is that Obama appears to have gotten a sweet deal that the average citizen never would have gotten. In a 2005 smoking-hot real-estate market, Obama got a house for "$300,000 less than the asking price"!
Obama got the deal because ... he was Democratic Senator Obama. "Shady"? Definitely.
It really is amazing how much people will try to suspend from how thin a thread - such as the attempt to support a claim of a fishy deal.
The "no evidence" line in the article doesn't connect to Obama not doing anything wrong.
Yes, it does - because first, what there is "no evidence that the senator is fibbing" about are his assertions that "[h]e didn't arrange the joint purchase with" Rezko and "bought the house at such a good price ... because it was being unloaded in a 'fire sale.'" And second, there is nothing to indicate that Rezko ever "asked anything in return."
Even Obama admits the deal was a "mistake"
A political mistake - precisely because people like you would try to make it into something for which there is no evidence.
The name "Barackwater," it appears, is apt.
"Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase, but only because a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko, who owns other properties in the South Side."
Makes no sense. What is Obama trying to say, that he called Rezko to ask whether XYZ contractors did good plumbing work?
Rezko was known to be under federal investigation. I'm not a US Senator but I'd have the good judgement not to contact someone under federal investigation about a real estate purchase I wanted to make.
The subsequent deal, with Obama buying a portion of the property from Rezko and Rezko being billed for a fence makes no sense either. Obama gets an appraisal that would have valued the total Rezko-bought package for less than half what Rezko paid. Rezko agrees to diminish a small city lot at Obama's request and at no premium over the price he paid for it. What businessman would do that?
Why are you getting your panties in bunch over this? Do you think Obama knew Rezko was under investigation or is this something you’re assuming? Should we send another 40 million dollars to investigate why the former owner of Obama’s house sold him it 300,000 dollars than the asking price?
I have no reason to want Barack Obama to get a free pass, do you? The deal stinks on ice.
So you assumed he knew Rezko was under investigation based on your extrapolation. Let’s assume everything you speculate about the deal is true. This means what exactly?
How would Obama, a US Senator, know that "a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko" and not know that his campaign contributor was under federal investigation (unless, of course, he makes sure not to know).
Did the renovator tell Obama to contact Rezko? Why? Was Rezko supposed to give Obama a reference for the renovator rather than do what people usually do when they purchase a home, have a home inspection? Did Obama even meet or talk with the renovator?
I don't see a reasonable explanation for Obama personally calling Rezko at all.
Please read the Chicago Trib link below and the Obama quote I took out of it. Whats so interesting about it is that Obama was caught flat-footed. He doesn't have an explanation so he retreats into being "not clear" about the details of his own house purchase only a year ago.
How did it come up? How did a reporter get this (over a month ago in the Chicago papers)?
(Thank God it didn't go national before the election with Obama all over the country trying to be the face of the Democratic Party because he sure cannot stand any questioning on this.)
"How would Obama, a US Senator, know that "a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko" and not know that his campaign contributor was under federal investigation (unless, of course, he makes sure not to know). "
The above doesn't make any sense. Obama knows about a person who renovated the house before he brought it so naturally he must have known that Rezko was under investigation?!? If you were under investigation would you broadcast it to your neighbors?
"Did the renovator tell Obama to contact Rezko? Why? Was Rezko supposed to give Obama a reference for the renovator rather than do what people usually do when they purchase a home, have a home inspection? Did Obama even meet or talk with the renovator? "
I have no clue what you're talking about here.
"(Thank God it didn't go national before the election with Obama all over the country trying to be the face of the Democratic Party because he sure cannot stand any questioning on this.)"
I still don't know why you're having a titty attack over this.
Do you live in $2 million house? He doesn't give a darn about YOU if you don't.
"Do you live in $2 million house? He doesn't give a darn about YOU if you don't."
What does the above have to do anything?
And what free pass are you talking about? All you’re posting is a bunch of assumptions.
Only someone who wants to believe it would buy it. It makes no sense to call Rezko unless he wanted Rezko to help him.
Rezko was known to be under federal investigation; it does Obama no credit to want to believe he didn't know that.
"Only someone who wants to believe it would buy it. It makes no sense to call Rezko unless he wanted Rezko to help him."
I think the problem you and I are having (if you're sincerely concerned with such a trivial issue) is I don't care about the explanation. Even if what you and Slate are assuming, speculating or imagining is 100 percent true, there's nothing wrong with it.
"Rezko was known to be under federal investigation; it does Obama no credit to want to believe he didn't know that."
Why do you keep on repeating "Rezko was known to be under federal investigation?" Instead of speculating what Obama knew, why don' you send him an email and ask him.
Ha. Like he hasn't lied about it plenty already.
You don't care. You don't want to see a US Senator held accountable over a measly $300,000. Thats your view.
Okay, I'll accept your premise. Obama’s neighbor (who Obama knew was under investigation at the time) helped him save $300,000 on a house and this is a crime because...?
Obama's explanation is ludicrous ... Makes no sense
What part of "no evidence he is fibbing" don't you understand?
Good luck with that.
Andra, thank you for the crystal-clear example of truthiness.
"The deal is fishy because I want it to be fishy!"
But the very article you're using to declaim about Obama says flat out that there is no evidence he is "fibbing" about the deal.
"The deal is fishy!"
But...
"Because I want it to be fishy!"
And so it goes. Desire is proof. You'd make a great creationist.
If he said the moon is made of green cheese, you'd believe him.
you'd think he was lying.
Rezko was known to be under federal investigation. I'm not a US Senator but I'd have the good judgement not to contact someone under federal investigation about a real estate purchase I wanted to make.
andra
----------------------------------
Known to be under federal investigation by whom Kemosabe?
Did you bother to look at the news stories or is that just off the top of your head because you don't want to know anything that would make Obama look bad?
The cross burning of the Osama lynch mob was premature. This dog won't hunt.
At the time this deal went down, there was "speculation" in some circles about Rezko's ethics. Speculation is not federal investigation and "speculation" on the part of some does not impute actual or constructive knowledge to all. "Obama said that he was unaware of Rezko's brewing troubles in 2005 and that Rezko sought no favors. He described himself, after eight years in the Illinois Senate and two on Capitol Hill, as careful to live within strict ethical boundaries -- refusing to allow lobbyists to pay for meals, for example, and reimbursing people for golf outings." Washington Post, 12/17/06
You probably don't even realize you're doing it by now. There's more to life than race, Heru.
>>"Sorry, folks, but MMFA is being less than honest here."<<
(Dozens of Media Matters supporters, heads down, walking away dejectedly.....)
What a bummer.
What the hell is this ' "Liberal media" indeed' crap all about. Did you ever see me write anything to the effect of the "media is liberal." You're projecting on me an opinion you want me to have so that your opinion will look valid. I've noticed this is generally what people who don't have anything to stand on do.
You put WAYYY too much emphasis on your place in my little world.
"Liberal media indeed" was a generalized comment on the state of media discourse in this country, based on my analysis of this particular instance of conservative misinformation. I end a lot of my comments with that sentence.
But I think it's cute that you thought it was directed at you.
I live in Georgia and all my email buddies are conservatives. I send them examples of conservative media bias and always end it with the same line: "Liberal media indeed". It drives them NUTS!
We'll see if the Obama story gains traction. Funny how the Hastert land deal for which he slipped in legislation to spend boucou tax dollars to build an offramp to get to his property got hardly a mention in the MSM. I didn't even hear about it until a month after it happened, and I read the news every day. Liberal media indeed!
You really ought to broaden your horizons--make some liberal friends too--I think you will find that it will make you a better person.
better person?
I've noticed this is generally what people who don't have anything to stand on do.
Captain! The irony-meter...she's gone off the charts! We cannae' hold it much longer!
Obama got the deal because ... he was Democratic Senator Obama. "Shady"? Definitely.
The house belonged to a university employee, and it had been listed for many months. There was a hard event coming up, the owner's departure, so there was a time pressure on the sale. If the price was too high in the first place, and the time pressure made the seller buckle, then there would be nothing unusual at all. In fact, I think those are the facts.
If there is anything to this story, a reporter can find the seller, and thoroughly investigate this story from top to bottom. My sense is that the AP, originally, dug up this already spun story -- likely aided by a tip from conservative political operatives -- but so far, they got nothin'.
Does this explanation make any sense to anyone:
"Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase, but only because a person who had renovated it for a previous owner had once worked with Rezko, who owns other properties in the South Side."
Rezko was known to be under federal investigation at the time.
Heres the relevant Obama quote from the Chicago Tribune:
"I don't recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property," Obama said.
"I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I'm not clear about that," Obama said.
[link to www.chicagotribune.com]
Does that quote give one any confidence? He's so "not clear" about the details of his own house purchase last year.
Whats a good reason for a US Senator to contact someone known to be under federal investigation and get that person involved in a personal financial deal?
where's the quote that says Rezko, at the time of the deal, was known to be under federal investigation and by whom?
if hot air was enough to start a fire, you'd have enough to burn that cross already.
Roll out the noise machine, Obama's come to town, and people LIKE him! Tar and feather him, draw and quarter! He hates America, he has a funny name! He's not as easy to shoot at as Hillary is! His ears are BIG. Just don't say he's black, everything else is kosher.
and his middle name is "Hussein". The conservative media seems to think that is important for everyone to know.
As noted above, Obama's explanations are not credible and Rezko is under federal indictment.
Its sure not going to be helpful to the Democrats if Obama is a declared candidate and gets indicted.
The charge(s) of the indictment will be...?
Why was it illegal for Duke Cunningham to get the extra $700,000 above what his house was worth?
Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery for steering tens of millions of dollars in government contracts to a guy who brought his house over market value and then sold it a few months later because he apparently didn’t want it. Cunningham was also convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion.
Bob Ney was convicted of accepting gifts from Abramoff in exchange for his support and passage of legislation favorable to Abramoff’s clients. He was also convicted of falsifying financial disclosure forms and making false statements after four witnesses testified that he was accepting bribes for passing legislation.
It was reported in the Daily Gabbler that Obama made the real estate deal after guaranteeing Rezko that he would be his BFF. Obama will plead shortly.
Thats where I'd look for charges. $300,000 is twice the amount that caused Alcee Hastings so much trouble.
That’s to broad; be more specific. Conspiracy to do what? Tax evasion for what?
And, you know, you've only heard one side, Obama's. (And its lame.) You haven't heard what Rezko's told the prosecutors about any of this. You don't know what the real estate broker will say under oath about offers and counter-offers to get that $300,000 off the list price. Rezko paid full price for the vacant lot; did he not make any offer below full price? Why not?
What would that developer/renovator tell the prosecutor? Did Obama contact that person at all? He's Obama's excuse for contacting Rezko.
And the owner of the property. What would he tell the prosecutors about how that vacant lot was appraised to be worth over $600,000 when the appraiser that Obama hired to get a value on taking a chunk of the lot said that 1/6 of the lot was only worth $40,000.
Lot of avenues for the prosecutor to pursue and its Fitzgerald, who seems willing to do details, as he did with Libby. As I noted above, Obama was caught flat-footed by the questions. Who told the reporter about the issue?
If you won't hold a US Senator accountable, who should be held accountable?
"If you won't hold a US Senator accountable, who should be held accountable?"
Something is seriously wrong with you. You want to convict a senator on your assumptions, speculations and your vast imagination. Did it ever occur to you that Rezko or the previous owner of the house have nothing to say about the deal? Or maybe they’ll tell prosecutors that the republican party put them up it? Or maybe Rezko brought the lot for Al Qaeda and they reneged on the deal?
You will be disappointed in Barack Obama, thats for sure. Theres never been a politician that I'd pretend to be deaf, dumb and blind just to go on believing him.
Disappointed for what? He’s not anyone special. If you have evidence of a crime other than your assumptions, speculations or your wild imagination, post it. I've been waiting for you to post even the slightest bit of evidence for 2 days now and you post conspiracy theories. I ask what the charges will be since you’re so certain he committed a crime and you comeback with conspiracy and tax evasion without saying what the conspiracy is or what the tax evasion stems from. I tell you email Obama but you'd rather use your imagination. What the Justice Department is investigating has nothing to do with Obama but somehow you and Slate imagine the whole thing about him. How can anyone take you seriously if you’re not providing any evidence to back up your claims?
As I said before, even if what you and Slate are imaging took place is 1000% true, the only thing it proves is that he got a great deal on a house.
Realize that this chick is a paranoid schizophrenic.
Realize that Obama is the first black American to be seriously considered for the presidency. This scares the hell out of white conservatives. The fact that he is actually LIKED by most americans causes trouble for them since they cannot attack him in the way they would a Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton. They dare not pull the race card and so that leads to superficial attacks like the size of his ears, or even more trivial attacks like putting his picture and OBL's picture side by side and comparing the names. It's all that scared white conservatives can come up with at this time. Make no mistake, we will see even more febile attempts to impugn his character as the months go by and election time draws closer. It's sort of a "throw it all against the wall and see what sticks" gameplan and hopefully they will get Obama to say something that can be twisted and misquoted such as they did to Kerry. It's the same old tacticts they've used in the past only now they must tread lightly since Barack Obama is black and they don't want to come off being seen as attacking him on purely racial grounds. That would really expose them for the true cowards that they are.
Whether Obama is presidential material will be decided in the months to come but one thing is for certain, conservatives fear his potential. Look for more attacks on his character in the near future.
C.O.L.
I hope.
This will work? Not sure....
doing it this way.
I'm not sure that worked, but my experience has been that to do this, you have to turn italics on and off in your own post and then turn them off again.
MMFA really, really needs a "preview post" option.
Theres no good explanation for it.
What I think happened is that Obama just couldn't help himself. Such a sweet deal, he just couldn't help it.
"Theres no good explanation for it."
-----
There was one in the Slate article. Too bad you didn't bother to read or understand it.
You'd have no problem with Obama calling the local mafia chieftain or a gang leader or a reputed drug "kingpin" and chatting him up about how hard it was to put together his house deal. They're just chewing the fat, right? They're friendly acquaintances and Obama never reads the paper.
Andra, you got nothing. Just accept that a black man named Obama will be your next president. I wish I could be there to see the expression on our face when he wins ROFLMAO
In the meanwhile, if you need to find criminal politicians, no need to fear, the GOP's (Grand Ole Pedophiles) chock full of 'em. So many going down so fast its hard to keep up with em and remember the whole list. Foley, Delay, Cunningham, Hastert....
Look at the kings new clothes. Aren’t they beautiful?
Look at the kings new clothes. Aren’t they beautiful?
At any rate, they're much better than your threadbare attempt at humor, and that's giving you the benefit of a very large doubt.
Nothing wrong lol? Does he buy cattle futures too?
Your post is full of cattle pasts, if you know what I mean (and I think you do).
I will say this, it's only going to get worst if he actually run.