About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Once again, NBC's Myers ignored Obama's specific response countering suggestion that Rezko "may have essentially subsidized" Obama's home purchase

January 30, 2008 6:54 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: NBC's Lisa Myers reported that critics, whom she did not name, say that "in paying full price for" the vacant lot adjoining Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago home, indicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase" of the property in 2005. While noting that Obama "strongly disputes" the charge, Myers did not report Obama's specific statements countering the suggestion.

19 Comments

On the January 29 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers reported that critics, whom she did not name, say that "in paying full price for" the vacant lot adjoining Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Chicago home, indicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase" of the property in 2005. Myers added that "Obama strongly disputes" this claim. In a January 28 "web-only" report on Obama and Rezko, Myers similarly cited unidentified critics saying that Rezko's purchase of the lot "may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase." But in both cases, Myers omitted Obama's specific statements countering the suggestion. The Chicago Sun-Times specifically asked Obama why he paid less than asking price for the house while Rezko paid full price for the lot, and Obama said that he was "not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot," and that he was able to purchase the house for less than the 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."

Myers reported on January 29:

MYERS: In June 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot for $625,000 -- full price. And on the same day, Obama bought his home for $1,650,000 -- 300,000 below asking price. He says because the house had been on the market for months. At the time, it had been widely reported that Rezko was under scrutiny in various investigations for possible political corruption. Rezko was later indicted for bribery and fraud, unrelated to the Obama sale.

[...]

MYERS: The Chicago Tribune and others have been investigating the deal for more than a year. And in endorsing Obama this week, the Tribune called on the candidate again to divulge all there is to know about his relationship with Rezko.

Critics say that in paying full price for the lot, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase, which Obama strongly disputes. The Realtor who represented the seller says Obama could not have bought the house unless someone bought the lot at the same time.

As Media Matters noted in response to Myers' January 28 report, the Chicago Sun-Times published an interview with Obama on November 5, 2006 -- four days after the Chicago Tribune reported on the land purchase -- 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.

From the January 29 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: If you were watching the last Democratic debate, you probably heard that barb from Hillary Clinton directed to Barack Obama. Just when the debate started to heat up, she mentioned Obama's relationship with a, quote, "slumlord" in Chicago. That man is Tony Rezko, currently in jail on federal charges unrelated to Obama. But he is part of something directly related to Obama, a real estate transaction back in '05 that allowed Senator Obama to buy his current home in Chicago. And Rezko's criminal troubles are now bringing renewed scrutiny to that real estate deal. We get more from our senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers.

[begin video clip]

MYERS: This is Senator Barack Obama's stately home in a pricy Chicago neighborhood. Inside the iron fence that surrounds his home is a vacant lot that lies at the heart of the controversy over Obama's relationship with his friend and campaign contributor Tony Rezko. When Obama bought the home in 2005, the seller insisted that the house and the lot be sold at the same time. But Obama says he couldn't afford the lot. Here's the Realtor for the seller talking about the Obamas.

DONNA SCHWAN (real estate agent): They were not interested in the lot at any point. It wasn't even on the table for them.

MYERS: That's where his longtime friend Rezko comes into the picture. In June 2005, Rezko's wife bought the lot for $625,000 -- full price. And on the same day, Obama bought his home for $1,650,000 -- 300,000 below asking price. He says because the house had been on the market for months. At the time, it had been widely reported that Rezko was under scrutiny in various investigations for possible political corruption. Rezko was later indicted for bribery and fraud, unrelated to the Obama sale.

JAY STEWART (executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association): What looks bad about the transaction is the fact that the transaction occurred at all. Tony Rezko was headed for trouble. He was clearly in the crosshairs of the federal government.

MYERS: The Chicago Tribune and others have been investigating the deal for more than a year. And in endorsing Obama this week, the Tribune called on the candidate again to divulge all there is to know about his relationship with Rezko.

Critics say that in paying full price for the lot, Rezko may have essentially subsidized Obama's purchase, which Obama strongly disputes. The Realtor who represented the seller says Obama could not have bought the house unless someone bought the lot at the same time.

SCHWAN: It was a requirement of the listing that they close on the same day.

MYERS: Obama strongly denies any wrongdoing but now calls the deal a "boneheaded mistake."

OBAMA: This was a above-the-board, market-based transaction. Everybody who's looked at it has acknowledged as such, but there's no doubt that it was a mistake on my part.

MYERS: No one has accused Obama of doing anything illegal, but even he admits he should have handled this one differently. And Obama has donated tens of thousands of dollars of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (January 30, 2008 7:24 pm ET)
         
      Let me see if I understand.

      Clinton was involved in the Whitewater mess and we spend a gazillion dollars to find out that there wasn't much to the story.

      Bush and Cheney take over and their cronies loot the treasury six ways from Sunday while they destroy then 'rebuild" Iraq and we give them more no bid contracts instead of investigating.

      Now Obama is a contender and the right wing wants to dig into this deal he was involved in.

      I'm at the point in my life where I don't expect anything to make sense, but why dig into Clinton's and Obama's dealings and not the scams of the gutless wonders running the show today.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gafteci (January 30, 2008 7:35 pm ET)
         

      So Obama said 'We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot.' Fine. Explain how Rezko got involed to begin with. Come on!! Obama knew Rezko for 18 years before that and, just by luck, Rezko happens to buy the parcel of land right next to Obama, the piece of land that, if not purchased, would have prevent Obama from buying his house for $300,000 below asking price.

      Anybody else starting hold their nose?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (January 30, 2008 9:08 pm ET)
           

        No cause then I know someones going try for my wallet while I'm distracted.

        Sides the smell thats been coming from the white house these last seven years over powers any other smell, unless you've got a digital nose maybe. Describe the smell, maybe my old analog snifer can bracket the area. Keep smiling, don't let them know you know.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (January 30, 2008 11:13 pm ET)
           
        It wasn't coincidence, Obama freely admitted it was a co-deal. The general question of association is a valid one, but this specific deal was no deal. The house was overvalued, the lot wasn't. Happens all the time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by atheist (January 30, 2008 11:54 pm ET)
             

          The house was overvalued, the lot wasn't. Happens all the time.

          I agree.  We'd have to know so much more about the properties to be able to make any claim that Obama's property was worth more than he paid and the empty lot was worth less than Rezko paid.  It is an interesting concept, overpay on one to underpay on the other, but a guy who can afford a $1.65 million house probably doesn't need help from anyone else.  

          Report Abuse
    • Author by lovetobeliberal (January 30, 2008 7:39 pm ET)
         
      Big freakin' deal. Does anyone actually give a damn about what is important in this country? Or are folks just upset because regardless of who bought the lot next door, they still wouldn't be able to afford a house like that? Hmmmm, that could be because although we live in the "richest" country in the world, very few of us live like "the riches".
      Report Abuse
    • Author by optimus prick (January 30, 2008 8:03 pm ET)
         
      3 words:

      Free Market Capitalism.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (January 30, 2008 11:05 pm ET)
         
      I'm no fan of Obama, but this is a bogus story about the property. Unfair.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (January 30, 2008 11:08 pm ET)
         
      P.S. not only will any realtor tell you that lots are more desirable in good areas than many houses, but 'asking price'  means nothing. It means 'asking.'
      Report Abuse
    • Author by edgarfield (January 31, 2008 8:53 am ET)
         
      No doubt this will be one issue that the 527 groups will go after Obama, so for all those weak kneed liberals who think that the attack machine will go after Clinton and not Mr. Happy, Barack Obama, wake-up. It will be hard to defend for Obama, the voice of the poor and the downtrodden to be found working for Rezko. Obama handled much of Rezko's work and his firm oversaw assisting with legal proceedings for evicting renters. If Obama helped file even one eviction proceedings except them to the dredge up that person and have them on a commercial. The mortagage thing is yet another angle. Obama handled Rezko as a client for the law firm. Every case Obama has been involved in is being poured over and looked at. The firm where he worked is also going to come under suspicion. With John Kerry running Obama's campaign expect the attacks to go unchecked until the damage is done. The far left wing of the party just doesn't have the backbone to be aggressive when attacked.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by H-Man (January 31, 2008 9:38 am ET)
         

      Once again the media spin machine gets it wrong. Just read the Factcheck article on it.

       

      http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_have_a_real_estate_problem.html

      I live in Chicago and have heard these bogus claims for months now. Every time I contact the media agency who are spreading these rumors of wrongdoing. I find it funny that the article says no one has accused Obama of doing anything illegal. Well then why is it being brought up?

       

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 31, 2008 1:23 pm ET)
           
        Many times investigative reporting brings illegal activities to light.  Obama's real estate transaction WAS very odd.  You can't really criticize the media for investigating, they smell something fishy and they're looking into it.  If Obama did nothing wrong, this will hopefully all blow over.  I don't think he'll get the same treatment as the Clintons.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Mark from Chicago (January 31, 2008 10:39 am ET)
         
      There is virtually no doubt that Rezco was trying to be Obamas best friend, and that he may have hoped to be buying influence for something in the future. Hey, every campaign contribution is made hoping to buy some influence with the candidate in the future. But what Rezko actually did was pay asking price for a parcel of property, and there is no evidence or even a suggestion that Obama did him political favors in return.  This is such a "non-story" that it just highlights that noone has found any real dirt on Obama yet.  The attempt to make this transaction a big deal is laughable without more facts to back it up. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 31, 2008 1:18 pm ET)
           

        as a state legislator, Mr. Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting efforts by Mr. Rezko and a partner to build apartments for the elderly with $14 million in government money, The Chicago Sun-Times reported in its June 13 editions. The developers received $855,000 in fees.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/us/politics/14rezko.html 

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kelso rich (January 31, 2008 11:06 am ET)
         
      It's a buyers market when it comes to homes that cost that much.  It's been that way for a the last several years now.  There's many rather large and very expensive residences here in my hometown that have been sitting vacant for months, some for years.  Shouldn't that be taken into consideration?  What's the market like in Chicago?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ian9241 (January 31, 2008 2:15 pm ET)
         
      ATHIEST:

      I would recommend checking the link that H-MAN posted. Factcheck is created by the Annenberg foundation and is considered to have no political agenda. It has run debunking items in favor of every candidate, Democrat and Republican, and taken every one to task.

      The letters you refer to are specifically referenced in this article. I do agree that Obama should have distanced himself more, as his relationship with him "smells bad"... although I have people I know and have even remained in contact with in the past who turned out to be less than savory.

      Here's the link:

      http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_obama_have_a_real_estate_problem.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 31, 2008 5:37 pm ET)
           
        I know the facts.  I live in Chicago, I've been following this story.  The connection between Obama and Rezko is a problem for Obama even if he didn't do anything wrong, because people will always feel, as they did with the Clintons, that even though they were cleared of wrongdoing (except Bill's perjury, of course, as if we really needed to know he had extramarital sex with someone, but I digress ...) that *something* happened, *something* is wrong, so the story continues.  I have to admit that if I were a journalist I would be digging.  Rezko is a wealthy man, and I don't think he got to that position by throwing his money away on political candidates who never did him any favors.  Do you understand what I'm saying ?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by H-Man (January 31, 2008 6:08 pm ET)
             
          I'm not saying that reporters aren't going to dig. But it is irresponsible to report this type of garbage without additional proof. I think reporters should dig anywhere they want. But they have a responsibility to only report information that is accurate. Anything less makes you like Faux News. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by atheist (January 31, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
               
            I understand what you're saying and I agree with you.  Not good to broadcast mere speculation unless you've got lots of evidence to back it up.
            Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.