Fox News reporter, host baselessly claimed Obama bought land from Rezko at a "discounted price"
SUMMARY: On The Live Desk, Steve Brown and Greta Van Susteren both baselessly asserted that Sen. Barack Obama purchased land adjoining his Chicago home from Antoin Rezko at a "discounted price." In fact, Obama paid $104,500 for the land, substantially more than what an Obama spokesman reportedly said was the land's appraised value.
On the March 4 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, reporter Steve Brown and guest host Greta Van Susteren both baselessly asserted that Sen. Barack Obama purchased land adjoining his Chicago home from indicted businessman Antoin Rezko at a "discounted price." Brown stated: "After sales of Obama's books netted him a fair amount of money, he went out and purchased a sizable home on the South Side. Adjacent piece of property was picked up by Tony Rezko and later transferred at a discounted price to Senator Obama." Later, Van Susteren asked: "[T]he question is, did Senator Obama know that it was, quote, 'a discounted price' when he got it? Or, I mean, was he -- was this part of the sort of the boneheaded, that he was busy with other business, didn't pay much attention?" In fact, when purchasing the land in January 2006, Obama paid $104,500, substantially more than what an Obama spokesman reportedly said was the land's appraised value. Obama purchased one-sixth of the lot adjoining his own property that the Rezkos had purchased in 2005 for $625,000. The Washington Post reported on December 17, 2006, that an Obama spokesman said the strip of land Obama purchased from Rezko had been appraised at $40,500, "but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot."
Brown later stated: "I presume that he had an idea that he was getting a deal, or some sort of discount at that particular time, but it's hard to know what it is that's going through somebody's mind when they're, you know, going through a real estate transaction, and I don't pretend to know what details the senator knew about that transaction."
Brown also asserted that "while it was clear that Tony Rezko was in the favor-collecting business, the question is -- for as far Senator Obama is concerned -- whether or not there were favors repaid." Brown added: "And that portion of the equation -- the quid pro quo, if you will -- but if they know what the quid is, they haven't figured out what the pro quo is -- or at least prosecutors and investigators haven't been able to connect the dots on that." In fact, several news outlets have reported that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing or "pro quo" on Obama's part regarding the real estate deal with Rezko.
From the March 4 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha MacCallum:
BROWN: After sales of Obama's books netted him a fair amount of money, he went out and purchased a sizable home on the South Side. Adjacent piece of property was picked up by Tony Rezko and later transferred at a discounted price to Senator Obama. Senator Obama called later that transaction "boneheaded," and said it was a mistake and he wished he could take back.
But while it was clear that Tony Rezko was in the favor-collecting business, the question is -- for as far Senator Obama is concerned -- whether or not there were favors repaid. And that portion of the equation -- the quid pro quo, if you will -- but if they know what the quid is, they haven't figured out what the pro quo is -- or at least prosecutors and investigators haven't been able to connect the dots on that.
SUSTEREN: I guess, Steve, the question is, did Senator Obama know that it was, quote, "a discounted price" when he got it? Or, I mean, was he -- was this part of the sort of the boneheaded, that he was busy with other business, didn't pay much attention?
BROWN: Well, this is a gentleman who did get a Harvard law degree, and it wasn't his first time through the real estate business. So I presume that he had an idea that he was getting a deal, or some sort of discount at that particular time, but it's hard to know what it is that's going through somebody's mind when they're, you know, going through a real estate transaction, and I don't pretend to know what details the senator knew about that transaction.
*VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, I'll defend him on the "having gone to Harvard" thing because, frankly, he's got so much -- many other things on his plate that he may not pay that much attention to his business, but anyway -- but he is a smart man, but may not pay attention to that. Steve, thank you.
"substantially more than what an Obama spokesman reportedly said was the land's appraised value."
How about Media Matters finding some legitimate real estate appraiser to tell the value of the land rather than a quote from an Obama spokesman who obviously is lying.
Obama would not pay over $100,000 for a $40,000 piece of property. He is not that stupid. If he is, I sure wouldn't want him in charge of the Pentagon. Imagine what the price of toilet seats there would go for.
An Obama spokesman is not a legitimate source for this story. I'm sure Media Matters would believe a Karl Rove spokesman. What a joke.
Well, Obama said he pad $104k because Rezko initially paid $625k for the entire lot and Obama bought 1/6 of it. 1/6 of $625k is $104k.
Look, for an example, I'm a cyclist. I have lots of friends who are cyclists. I know lots of people that own bike shops, and they're my friends. Guess what? They give me discounts on stuff.
This whole thing is ridiculous. If he did something illegal, press charges, indict him, try him, and then toss him into jail. But since he didn't do anything illegal, get over it folks, get over it.
Mag. they don't want to get over it. Why would they,? they have a proven track record of latching onto non-stories and hammering them every day until their audience is convinced there's something there.
I was listening to some righty radio today (I think it was Hugh Hewitt), and following some vague references to this, a caller came on, saying he didn't understand the Rezko story and asking for clarification.
The host fumbled around for a while, not really having any facts, but stating that Obama was dirty and Rezko was "a fixer", well known in sleazy Chitown political circles.
The host finally admitted that he didn't really understand the Rezko issue,and changed the subject to Whitewater. He and his co-host or producer tried to get a grip on Whitewater, pretty quickly admitting that it was confusing, and that they didn't really understand it.
But, THE DRESS was easy to understand, they both agreed. Having successfully turned the topic from two stories they obviously knew nothing about, to Monica Lewinsky's dress, the host told the caller Obama and Razko were dirty, and that's all he needed to know.
"Thank you" said the caller.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be a Hewitt show transcript service, I just thought it was an amazing bit of GOP radio.
Mag. they don't want to get over it. Why would they,? they have a proven track record of latching onto non-stories and hammering them every day until their audience is convinced there's something there.
Most obvious example? Whitewater, where nothing crooked (about the Clintons' involvement in the land deal) was ever found.
Exactly right Col. It is just pure silliness. Like I said before, if he did something illegal, which it looks like nobody did, then by all means, let's prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. Whitewater, same thing, and we all now how that turned out. Specious arguments from the get go on that one, and same thing here.
And again, we do have the double standard. We have on one hand McCain's good buddy, and chairman of his campaign in Arizona indicted, and we don't really hear much about that. I mean, a direct peer of McCain's. Obama's sometime contributor gets indicted, and all of a sudden, a house and some land Obama bought is shady? What the?
Again, we see, apparently, IOKIYAR.
The obvious double-standards of these “guilt-by-association” issues are piling up on the right-wing like flies on fecal matter (I promised I was going to start using less offensive words in my posts – hehe).
if you want to know all about the huge waste of time and money that was the whitewater "scandal", read gene lyons' Fools for Scandal. more tax dollars were spent investigating this two-bit arkansas land development deal than it, and all related activities combined, were worth.
as well, it may be unique in political corruption history: the clintons lost money on the deal, and were still accused of getting some kind unfair benefit out of it. for myself, i'll pass.
in essence, larry klayman, a long time enemy of the clintons, passed on bogus information to a nyt's reporter. said reporter, too lazy to bother to attempt to confirm the accuracy of klayman's allegations, just put them in a story. the nyt's editors, displaying as little editorial oversight as they could, let it go with no fact-checking.
hence, whitewater was born. after a long, expensive investigation, it turned out that i could swallow an entire pad of 7 column workpapers, and barf up something with more substance than mr. klayman's accusations.
from everything i've seen, read and heard, absent some groundbreaking expose', this would seem a fair analogy to obama's rezko situation.
Yup - it's really scummy politics ...
You forgot to add this to your link:
"
Sources within the Republican National Committee say presumptive GOP nominee John McCain plans to use Obama's connection with Rezko against him if the Chicago Democrat wins the nomination. Republicans, the sources say, will try to portray Obama as bought and paid for not only by organized crime in Chicago but also by Syrians and other Arab interests.
"If Obama wins the nomination he will be portrayed as a pawn of the Arabs to gain control of the United States government," says one well-placed Republican campaign operative. "It will be an effective message aimed at stoking American fears."
But others in the GOP worry the plan could backfire because Republicans have also been linked to Rezko's shady dealings."
Just to add a couple of points about Whitewater. #1. No one denies that the Clintons lost money on Whitewater... and yet the socalled "scandal" has never gone away. #2. Bill Clinton still ran successfully for re-election in 1996, and Hillary has at least come very close to being nominated in 2008. So even though this Rezko "scandal" will never go away-- irregardless of the facts--- Obama can still get elected. The American people still decide who wins the election (unless it's very, very close like it was the last two times) and the American people are profoundly uninterested in Rezkogate, just as they were in Whitewatergate.