NBC's Myers ignored key facts in reporting on controversy over Obama's home purchase
SUMMARY: In a "web-only" report, Lisa Myers cited anonymous "[c]ritics" who suggest that indicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko's paying "top dollar" for a lot adjacent to Sen. Barack Obama's home somehow influenced the price Obama paid for his house. But Myers did not note that Obama has said he was "not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot" or that Obama has asserted that he was able to purchase the house for less than asking price because "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."
In a January 28 "web-only" report, NBC News senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported on the controversy surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) purchase of his Chicago home and indicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko's purchase of the vacant lot adjoining Obama's property. Myers reported that "Rezko's wife bought the lot on the same day that Obama bought his home next door," adding: "The seller wanted to unload both properties at the same time. Rezko paid full price for the lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for his adjoining property." Myers went on to report: "Critics say that in buying the lot for top dollar, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase and enabled him to buy the house." However, while citing anonymous "[c]ritics" who suggest that Rezko's paying "top dollar" for the lot somehow influenced the price Obama paid for his home, Myers did not note that Obama has said he was "not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot" or that Obama has asserted that he was able to purchase the house for less than asking price because "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."
Additionally, while Myers reported that "Obama has repeatedly denied wrongdoing" in the Rezko property deal, she did not note that, in fact, Obama has not been accused of wrongdoing or that several media reports have noted that there is "no evidence" Obama did anything wrong in purchasing his home.
The Chicago Tribune first reported on the purchase of the adjacent properties by the Obamas and Rezko's wife on November 1, 2006; the Tribune reported that the owner of the house and the adjacent lot listed them as separate properties and that Obama paid $1.65 million for the house -- $300,000 less than the asking price -- while the Rezkos paid the asking price of $625,000 for the lot. On November 5, 2006, the Chicago Sun-Times published an interview with Obama in which the paper asked: "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?" Obama responded:
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.
Myers, however, cited anonymous "[c]ritics" who "say that in buying the lot for top dollar, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase":
MYERS: In 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot on the same day that Obama bought his home next door. Obama has said he couldn't afford to buy both the house and the lot. The seller wanted to unload both properties at the same time. Rezko paid full price for the lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for his adjoining property.
Donna Schwan was the agent for the seller when Obama bought the house.
SCHWAN: It sold for $1,650,000 to Senator Obama.
MYERS: Rezko paid $625,000 for the lot next door. From a nearby roof, it looks as though the lot is part of the Obama property.
Critics say that in buying the lot for top dollar, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase and enabled him to buy the house. What's more, at the time Obama did the deal, it had been widely reported that his longtime friend Rezko was already under federal investigation.
Myers' January 28 "web-only" report :
MYERS: For sale: this desirable lot in a trendy Chicago neighborhood. Asking price? $995,000. There's just one hitch. Owner Mark [sic: Michael] Sreenan can't even step foot on his own property without trouncing through his neighbor's yard.
SREENAN: Unless we're going to jump the fence, the only way we're going is through this gate that's on his property.
MYERS: Why? Sreenan's vacant, fenced lot is right next door to the stately home of Senator Barack Obama, and the Secret Service controls all access, even to Sreenan's land.
SREENAN: I would say we just check with him and see if we can.
I own the lot here to this --
SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Can you stop filming there for a second?
MYERS: We did stop the camera. The lot is now at the heart of the controversy over Senator Obama's relationship with Chicago businessman and campaign contributor Tony Rezko, who has been indicted for fraud and today was arrested for an alleged bail violation.
In 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot on the same day that Obama bought his home next door. Obama has said he couldn't afford to buy both the house and the lot. The seller wanted to unload both properties at the same time. Rezko paid full price for the lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for his adjoining property.
Donna Schwan was the agent for the seller when Obama bought the house.
SCHWAN: It sold for $1,650,000 to Senator Obama.
MYERS: Rezko paid $625,000 for the lot next door. From a nearby roof, it looks as though the lot is part of the Obama property.
Critics say that in buying the lot for top dollar, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase and enabled him to buy the house. What's more, at the time Obama did the deal, it had been widely reported that his longtime friend Rezko was already under federal investigation.
Sreenan was Rezko's lawyer at the time.
UNIDENTIFIED: You think it was a sweetheart deal by Mr. Rezko for Senator Obama? Or do you think it just looks like one?
SREENAN: I think it just looks like one.
MYERS: Obama has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but calls the transaction bad judgment.
OBAMA [video clip]: This was a above-the-board, market-based transaction. Everybody who's looked at it has acknowledged it as such. But there's no doubt that it was a mistake on my part.
MYERS: Rezko sold a strip of his property to Obama, who put up a fence. Then, after Rezko was indicted, he sold the rest of the lot to Sreenan. Now, realtor Donna Schwan is trying to sell it again. She says she has no idea if it was a sweetheart deal for Obama.
SCHWAN: I see how people see it that way. But I just see it as I have two kids left in college, I want to sell the lot.
MYERS: For sale, one historic lot. Secret Service protection may be included. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington.
It's official:
MSNBC's bias against Clinton has gone beyond the mindless and the near-criminal tonight.
It has gotten positively psychotic.
Whether it's misquoting her speeches, or mis-defining poll terms to favor Obama, or falsely claiming that her astounding Florida victory "doesn't mean anything," or refusing to cover the favorable vote results for almost an hour, or calling the results "ginned up" (Andrea Mitchell,) or "Potemkin Village (Mitchell again,) this much is obvious:
These people-- these G.E and Welch marionettes--- are shameless in their dishonesty and lack of professionalism.
And all of their lies, and those of many Obama supporters, will backfire.
Hmmm....
Where are all the Obama supporters tonight. Not too good a news, eh?
Must be trying to cook up some excuses about the results, or trying to come up with reasons why and how "Mr. Unity" is going to keep Florida votes from counting at the convention.
It will be an interesting convention, watching Obama people seeking to discard votes.
It's called party rules
They violated those rules and lost delegates
The Dem candidates vowed not to campaign there per said rules
Hillary campaigned anyway, she won, but the delegates are still nill
again Per the rules of the party, sorry man, MSNBC is just reporting the news and reality has an Obama bias
LINKS?
FACTS?
Anything? Hillary is Bush-Lite man, Obama 08
lost, welcome back. here's the link. obama ran ads on cnn and msnbc. and they claimed they cleared it with the "south carolina democratic chair". what that had to do with ads that would run in florida is unknown.
http://adage.com/campaigntrail/post?article_id=123242
Carl,
The only thing more unseemly than a sore loser is a sore winner - congratulations to Hillary for her win in Florida, although it definitely is a victory with an asterisk for no delegates are awarded.
And I wouldn't be so dismissive or disrespectful of Obama supporters, or anyone else for that matter - if Hillary does become the nominee she will need every last vote from them to win, so perhaps before you arrogantly swipe at them, you'd do well to consider that.
Non-prejudiced pundits said it was the best move on her part. First, she SHOULD thank her supporters for coming out to vote in a half-dead primary. Second, IF the Democratic party decides to re-instate the Florida delegates, which they could do, Hillary's win is obviously important. Third, the win shows that she's got strong support in Florida, a key state in the general election.
Once again, your prejudice clouds your objectivity. If Obama had won, he too would have given a speech. In fact, even though he didn't win, he still should have given a speech to thank his supporters.
Is this a "scandal"?
A mild one. A "favor" was obviously done. The same day, one property at discount, the rest of the package at full price, all parties are happy. Obama gets his house at an affordable price, Rezko gets a piece of "investment" property and a grateful Obama, and the home seller gets a negotiated price that, combined, is acceptable.
Not illegal, not really surprising, so what's the problem?
The PROBLEM is, Obama is running as the squeaky-clean candidate. Total purity is a hard rep to maintain. Voters banking on his "bulletproof" background now have reason to believe that there might be something ELSE out there waiting to be disclosed. Perhaps a deeper, and more involved relationship with this now-indicted Rezko guy. That could be bad, and it would strike at the worst possible time, just before the November elections. And would the GOP use such info? You bet your bippy!
This little "scandal", mild as it is, puts a new dimension on the "electability" question.
Put another way, if they found such a deal involving Hillary, THIS WOULD BE HUGE. It would dominate the media for weeks, if not longer. They would SCREAM corruption and cronyism. But Hillary has already been long since vetted for such "scandals". Whitewater droned on for YEARS before being dropped as the "nothing there" story it always was.
Plus, Hillary has faced so very MANY Rightwing "scandals" that fizzled, she is virtually immunized against a "new" one by the "Cry Wolf" factor.
The importance of this revelation is that it will give pause to voters who know the Republicans and the Media well. An Obama without baggage, and beyond reproach, seemed a sure thing (no denying it). An Obama that might be ambushed at the last minute by a credible 'scandal', is almost a sure loser.
That's the problem with purity; it is SO EASY to destroy in this world. And once gone, it cannot be restored. Democrats MUST have a winner in 2008. The alternative is unthinkable. Hillary is the more "sure thing".
So Tex, you're saying Democrats should shun Obama in favor of Hillary because of the possibility or threats of scandal, and considering the "pureness" of Hillary has been pretty much obliterated, she is more electable as everybody knows what they get with the Clintons? Well, you have your opinion.......but on the other hand, people do know what they get with the Clintons, divisive and polarizing politics.
Where Obama appeals to unity, and isn't out to destroy opponents; in other words partisan battle lines are not as defined with him as opposed to the history the Clintons have - which of course is why she gets your support.
Got it now.
I'm not sure which one is more depressing, a platform of divisiveness and polarization OR a platform of 'less jobs and more wars'.
The tone of a campaign is only one factor, of course, but I think Obama is certainly winning in that respect.
On one hand, Hillary has been through the grinder...her supporters have been exposed to 16 years of scandals, rumors and propaganda. Unless the GOP can dig up iron-fclad evidence to prove the accusations they made back in the 90s, it will be hard to tarnish her image much further. Obama hasn't yet been through that process. Maybe he could survive it...maybe not.
On the other hand, Obama is seeking to tap the "better nature" in all of us. It's refreshing, after 16 years of partisan rancor, to hear someone actually speak of optimism and unity. Hillary is the traditional politician, Obama is the visionary...at least that's the impression I get. It's hard to say which one has the best chance of winning.
What has he actually done, what is he actually doing, to create unity ? So far it appears to be all talk, no action.
"What has he actually done, what is he actually doing, to create unity ? So far it appears to be all talk, no action."
As a candidate, that's pretty much all he can do, talk. A campaign for president is like the mother of all job interviews. You're convincing a person or persons that you are the right person for the job, and to do that, you talk.
As far as what he's done as a US senator and in the previous stages of his career to "create unity", a voter who considers this to be important owes it to him/herself to find out and factor that into their decision. The bio available on his website would probably be a good place to start.
In the end, most can't and don't deliver what they promise. Ironically, one exception has been President Numbnuts. He promised to ease the tax burden on our disadvantaged millionaires, and, by God, he did it.
It wasn't my "unity claim"
I clearly suggested that you find out for yourself. I recommended that you first go straight to the interviewee first and get their story. If you so choose, you can weigh that against what the right wing slime machine has to say about him.
I don't think Obama's campaign web site is the best place for me to get unbiased factual details about his work.
The best that I can find in his bio is that he "worked with Republicans and Democrats". Hillary has done this too. (I refer you to her campaign web site for proof.) So why do you accept Obama's bipartisan work as exemplifying unity and yet you reject Hillary's ? What evidence do you have that she's "divisive" and "polarizing" ?
You're really good at throwing words into other peoples' mouths, aren't you?
I made NO CLAIM that his website is the best place for unbiased information. I clearly and succinctly described it as a starting point, nothing more.
I expressed NO ACCEPTANCE of Obama's bipartisan work as "unifying". I never even used the word.
I expressed NO REJECTION of Hillary's bipartisan work.
The "divisive" and "polarizing" claim started with Tommy, I recommend you first take it up with him. I described the prospect of such a platform as "depressing" and made a swipe at the Republican front runner. But, I admit, you got me, I have no evidence to present.
Don't yell at me because your posts imply things that you didn't intend to imply. The problem is that you weren't clear and therefore I misunderstood. If you want people to understand you, then be clear. It's not that difficult.
ROFL ! "divisive" and "polarizing" appear to be coming from Obama himself !
DENVER (AP) - Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
I think Obama is a great speaker but I think it is alot of empty fluff.
I agree.
Here's another issue I have ... his web site and his supporters all tout his work as a "civil rights attorney". That's a great sound bite, but when you dig deeply you find that "Obama never took part in a trial. He spent most of his nine-year career working as part of a team, drawing up contracts, briefs and other legal papers."
The firm he worked for, Miner Barnhill & Galland, "offered another advantage to Obama. It was close to the political action. Miner was Chicago's corporation counsel under Harold Washington, the city's first black mayor, in the 1980s when Washington was battling for control of the City Council against remnants of the once-mighty Machine. Miner introduced Obama to a number of people in politics."
It makes you wonder if his primary interest was helping people or developing his political career. If it's the latter, it kind of takes away from the glow.
Funny. I see pro-Hillary bias all over the media... even in Pat Buchanan!!! But then, everyone's worried if they don't kiss Clinton butt, they'll never get any access should the duo miraculously end up in the WH.
In the early 90s, I was as big of a Clinton (both of them) supporter as you could find. Now I know, Billary will do or say anything to get elected and keep the country embroiled in endless political wars (just like now). The real peril is that there is already too high of a percent of the country that will never ever vote for her. Add to that there is plenty about the Clintons that the Republicans are waiting to attack... the WH papers, the Clinton library info... far bigger fish than Obama's little Rezko issue.
You can worry about Florida all you want, but in the general, it will very likely go Republican. I was closely following the figures last night and the total Rep vote vastly outweighed the total Dem. If Florida Dems wanted their votes to count at convention, they should have changed their primaries back to Super Tuesday. People - whether it be states, the Clintons, or the far right evangelicals (now boo hooing because they squandered control of all 3 branches of government) - always lose power when they try to grab too much.
The party that will win the WH this year is the one that is smart enough to go for the Indie and cross-over votes. Right now, that looks like it'll be the Republicans, although they'll do that with conservatives kicking and screaming. I am shocked at the Pollyanna image many Dems continue to have of Hillary. Y'all need to get off the internet and read some books!!! The Clintons are the reason I am no longer a Democrat. I am an Independent middle-aged white woman who will vote for whoever seems like they can stop the partisan bickering in DC. Definitely not HRC.
I find it strange that Mr. Obama is so strong in stating that "it takes good judgement to be President" when attacking Hillary on her Iraq war vote but openly admits that his dealings with Rezko was a mistake and poor judgement. Which is it Senator? Why is it everyone gives him a pass. They called Reagan the teflon president but this guy might slide his way into the Presidency. If you talk lofty enough, people will ignore your short comings and not vet you. At the debate, when Sen. Clinton brought up the Rezko situation, Obama went ballistic and made sure he clarified her remark by saying he only worked with Rezko for five hours as an associate attorney. How then did he become such good friends with him that they "Accidently" bought the house on the same day he bought the lot adjoining their house. Rezko made major donations to Obama's campaign and only when this came to light, he donated the money to charity. That must have been a great five hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!