Hannity scrambled facts to baselessly speculate about Obama-Rezko "quid pro quo"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Hannity's America, Sean Hannity repeated the baseless claim that "the Obamas pa[id] $300,000 below market value" for their house. Additionally, after recounting that the Obamas purchased land from the adjacent lot owned by Antoin Rezko, Hannity asserted: "And then, as state senator, he helped funnel money to these housing projects that Tony Rezko and other friends were working on." In fact, Obama's letter in support of a Rezko housing project was written seven years before the Obamas purchased their home, and both parties have reportedly said that Rezko did not solicit the letter.
During the December 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity again repeated the baseless claim that "the Obamas pa[id] $300,000 below market value" for their house. Additionally, after recounting that President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, purchased a strip of land from the adjacent lot owned by convicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Hannity said to Rove: "And then, as state senator, he helped funnel money to these housing projects that Tony Rezko and other friends were working on, most of which didn't work out in the end. But does it seem now like it's a quid pro quo, and do you think people will now revisit this?" In fact, Obama's letter in support of a Rezko housing project was written in 1998 -- seven years before the Obamas purchased their home in 2005, not afterward as Hannity asserted -- and both parties have reportedly said that Rezko did not solicit the letter.
In response to Hannity's assertion that "[t]he Rezkos pay full price. The Obamas pay $300,000 below market value," Rove stated: "Well, and look, I'm not sure it was below -- below market price. It was below asking price." Indeed, Bloomberg News reported in February that "[t]he couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor [Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko] bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller." Rove had himself baselessly claimed in August that the Obamas had bought their house "for cheaper than the market price."
Contrary to Hannity's claim that Rezko sold Obama the land "[a]nd then" Obama supported Rezko's housing project, Obama wrote the letter in support of Rezko's housing project on October 28, 1998 -- well before Obama purchased his house in 2005. Moreover, Obama and Rezko attorney Joseph Duffy have reportedly said that Rezko did not ask Obama to write the letter, which was sent to officials at the Illinois Department of Housing and Illinois Housing Development Authority. In a March interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama said of the letter that Rezko "did not solicit that from me. ... This was one of many form letters, or letters of recommendation we would send out constantly for all sorts of projects. And my understanding is that our letter was just one of many. And I wasn't a decision maker in any of this process." In a June 13, 2007, article, the Sun-Times reported: "Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, 'Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project.' "
From the December 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Well, you know, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Pfleger -- you know, some people criticize me and said, all right, well maybe I'm spending too much time and focus on this. Now Blagojevich -- we have the governor -- all friends of Barack Obama. Maybe -- did the American people maybe just ignore --
ROVE: Yeah.
HANNITY: -- or were too willing maybe -- maybe buy into the bumper stickers and the rhetoric and ignore what the Chicago way really meant?
ROVE: Yeah. Yeah.
HANNITY: And -- and I would focus in on the Rezko deal. I think that was --
ROVE: Well, you're right, you're right. You know, this -- here's the complaint. And if I were Barack Obama, what I'd be worried about is is that Rezko is throughout this whole thing. Rezko is key to Blagojevich, and we now know Rezko was important to Obama's political success as well, that he was the -- you know, there was a big whiteboard inside the Obama for United States Senate headquarters that listed the big fundraisers each week. And virtually every week, the name that was written on that board was Tony Rezko.
HANNITY: Well, and let's just remind our audience -- and we did our first examination right here on Hannity's America as it relates to the Rezko deal. Just to give a quick summary: We've got two properties bought on the same day -- one by the Obamas, one by the Rezkos.
ROVE: Adjoining properties.
HANNITY: Adjacent properties. The Rezkos pay full price. The Obamas pay $300,000 below market value. Over a period of time -- now the Rezko land was an -- was an adjacent lot, the Obamas had a house on their lot -- but at some point Rezko sells a part of the lot, which rendered it unbuildable, to the Obamas so they'd have more property. Now what -- where it gets a little fuzzy here is why would you -- you give up all of the value if you can't build on it. And then, as state senator, he helped funnel money to these housing projects that Tony Rezko and other friends were working on, most of which didn't work out in the end. But does it seem now like it's a quid pro quo, and do you think people will now revisit this?
ROVE: Well, and look, I'm not sure it was below -- below market price. It was below asking price. But they clearly -- one paid full price, and one didn't.
"and do you think people will now revisit this?"
Not this time pal. We've got a f_ckinng boatload of serious things, like treason and war crimes to wade through from Herr Karl and his henchmen before we start worrying about real estate deals again.
For your sake Karl, I hope you've got a criminal lawyer friend who hasn't been disbarred yet on your side.
If Hannity the insanity had his way there will be hearings on this. Will not work this time Hannity , the Repubs do not control congress and they can not spend years lying and trying to destroy the character of a President , like they attempted to do to President Clinton.
HANNITY: Well, you know, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Pfleger -- you know, some people criticize me and said, all right, well maybe I'm spending too much time and focus on this. Now Blagojevich -- we have the governor -- all friends of Barack Obama. Maybe -- did the American people maybe just ignore --
Sean Hannity has a very short memory. The American voters heard all of that and rejected it. And unless someone comes up with a smoking gun they'll reject this too...at least the sane ones will. Mr. Rove and the Republicans should tread caefully with this stuff because they should know by now that Barack Obama is a smart, tough character and he will bite back.
Recession? Nah that would hurt the GOP.
You might ask, "Who listens to this tripe?" Answer: millions of "like-minded" true Americans (as opposed to the rest of us). The basic tried-and-true method of attacking any non-conservative is to just repeat, over and over, and over, the same lies and spin regardless of the facts. After all, according to "them", most people are easily convinced and are also stupid. Why not use those facts to get a desired result? Build on that hatred of (ugh) liberals and score points.
Instead of Hannity's America...
Maybe we should call it Hannity's Sewer. ...It's dribblin' down your cheeks Sean.
I find it amusing that Hannity is talking about "bumper stickers" and "rhetoric."
For the last 8 years Fox News, the White House and the Republican Party have been nothing but bumper sticker slogans and empty rhetoric.
And they got the electoral reaming they so richly deserved.
I find that hilarious too. I don't know if it's a deliberate pre-emptive, or if Hannity & his cohorts have been drinking the KoolAid for so long that the projection comes out naturally.
One of Hannity's themes over the past few months has been The Death of Journalism, where he asks the question "Is 2008 the year that journalism in America died?", to which the sane would answer "If not, it's not for a lack of trying to kill it on your part,Hannity"
Not to mention the moronic 'Man on the Street' segment where he delieberately picks some unsuspecting, illiterate guy, proves that they voted for Obama, that they could not name one thing Obama did as a Senator, that they were idiots not to know Rezko, Wright et al, that they could not answer questions for which there is no definitive answer.
"Do you believe we are fighting evil, yes or no"?
Then, he self congratulates himself and his foolish followers. He also peddles his Freedom Comcert tickets (hosted by himself and other dubious characters like Liddy, North etc.)
Perhaps someone can explain how the letter used by MMFA effectively counters Hannity's claim: "And then, as state senator, he helped funnel money to these housing projects that Tony Rezko and other friends were working on".
It seems to me that Obama could indeed have funneled money toward Rezko as State Senator after the letter was written. (I am not saying he did but the letter seems to indicate Obama trying to use his influence on Rezko's behalf.)
I just don't see how this one letter written before Obama got his sweetheart house deal counters Hannity's assertion as MMFA says it does. The letter is proof that Obama did try to "help" Rezko. That is stipulated. Just because Rezko says he didn't solicit the letter, doesn't necissarily make it true and really has little bearing on the issue. The fact is that Obama did try to help Rezko.
it seems to me that something is missing from this argument by MMFA. What, if any, did Obama do for Rezko as State Senator? Why would Rezko have his wife buy the othe part of the property if not to gain influence with Obama? Why Rezko's wife's name on the deed? There are a number of interesting questions that show that Obama is not an innocent player. He obviously materially benefitted from Rezko laying out money for that property. Rezko has since been convicted of influence peddling.
The buying of property so Obama could buy the house is a classic instance of influence buying on Rezko's part.
I've got an idea, Barney. Why don't you try reading the article above, instead of begging other posters to give you some sort of Cliff Notes dumbed down version ?. You may have to let go of some preconceived ideas about "sweetheart deals" and you may have to sketch a little timeline to get the chronology right, but I think you may find it a very rewarding experience.
wow, another thoroughly debunked lie that Obama was straightforward and transparent about and yet here you are questioning it anyways. So much for your claim the other day about how transparency will kill any speculation...
AnotherAmerican
This is an issue that McCain should have brought up if it was valid. It does not appear to be vailid or have any merit.
This is an issue McCain WOULD definitively have brought up if it was 0.01% valid. He and Palin made so many baseless / ambiguous comments that they would never skip over something that had any semblance of merit or resonating with who they were trying to appeal to.
But, that will not convince AA.
The buying of property so Obama could buy the house is a classic instance of influence buying on Rezko's part. - AA
Yes, how diaboloical. And smart too, getting the Obama's to pay the asking price.
Indeed, Bloomberg News reported in February that "[t]he couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price...
It does take a village...
I never said the deal Rezko, his wife, and Obama made so Obama could buy the property was illegal nor did I say the Rezko/Obama partnership bought below market price. That wasn't the question. Obama still benefited from Rezko helping him out.
Look, we know Rezko has been convicted of influence peddling. We also know that this guy and his wife bought half the property so Obama could buy the house in question. They then sold part of their half to Obama. Why would they do that? Rezko has been conviceted of influence peddling so he is dirty. It defies logic to think that Rezko got nothing in return for helping Obama. But MMFA does not go down that route. I wonder why?
Again, everyone is getting worked up but missing the fundamental questions.
It defies logic...
What logic would that be? The kind of wingnut logic that believes that since Obama "talked" and "worked with" Blago means that he is guilty of conspiracy? Please explain your logic.
fog,
You must be getting your threads mixed up. This discussion is about Rezko and Obama.
you, like Sean, appear to not understand real estate transactions. "Market price" is a fluid concept. In fact, market price is simply what a buyer offers to pay. So, two identical houses could have very different market prices, if one has several high priced offers, and the other has only one prospective buyer. (For an example, let's call this prospective buyer "the Obamas"). This is why house prices are lower now than they were a year ago, because there are less buyers offering to pay high prices.
Truth is, it looks like Tony Rezko got a bad deal on his house. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Shamity scrambled facts? And we are surprised??????
In spite of his best and continuous efforts before the election, Shamity still thinks this smearing by association is a winner for Republicans. Till Rove or whoever is the current Republican talking point provider is says otherwise, he will continue to irritate the country.
If I did not listen to his pre-screened callers, I would be surprised.
Shamity scrambled facts, best served with burnt toast and ham.
I do not like burnt toast and ham, I do not like them...
I realize that this post of mine is going to go off script here.... and certainly there is plenty to say about the dumbest guy on TV and T-Blossum...
But I have noticed that none of the threads provided to us by MMfA today have no mention of Greta Van Sustren trying to link Rahm Emanuel to the disappearence of Natalie Holloway.... Did I hear this right or am I mistaken?
Also.... kudos goes out to that Iraqi journalist that had two near misses with shoes over in Iraq... my only problem that I had with the whole thing was ....
He missed!
Considering the wasted bl00d spilled in the name of Bush's BS pre-emptive occupation of Iraq... the least Bush can do is spill a little from his nose.
Hannity, is the kind of Christian that is representative of the Republican Party, as is George Bush. They have no conscious and believe that Jesus died for their sins, so there will be no repercussions for their behavior. But when they die they will be received warmly by those that went before them like Hitler and other deceivers.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
You should re-read aocasio's post. My read is that he/she's saying that since Hannity, Bush, etc. believe they will be cleansed of their sins on their judgement day that they are then free to commit any and every sin, knowing in their own mind that since they are "saved" and "true believers" that they will have their sins absolved and be welcomed into Heaven.
Do unto others and you would have them do unto you.
fog,
I find it rather amusing that non-believers are so quick to interpret teachings with which they do not agree.
It was a silly post to begin with, only full of anger and vitriol toward Christians, George Bush, and Republicans. You are just being argumentative to try to pass off aocasio's clear reference to Hell. Lets let it go at that.
ps. I like the quote at the end.
"I find it rather amusing that non-believers are so quick to interpret teachings with which they do not agree."
It may be that the non-believer is capable of a better treatment of those teachings, since the basis of his interpretation would (in a best case scenario) be based on logic rather than dogmatism.
"Christian" is also a term that covers a lot of sects. It would seem to me that the entire "born again" strain of fundamentalist Christianity, with its asssurance of being "saved," is based on what is, in Catholic teaching, the Cardinal Sin of Presumption.
It also seems to me that anyone who isn't angry at Bush, the Republicans and their Christian enablers just hasn't been paying attention for the last eight years.
I also like the quote.
Thank you Elmer Gantry; but I'll just call you Bucktooth from now on. You see Bucktooth, none of us need to be lectured on spiritual matters by the likes of you. We'll take our sustenance elsewhere. Aocasio is not attacking Christianity (and who appointed you Protectorate of Christendom anyway?). He is attacking the CINO's (Christians in Name Only) who are in fact the worst kind of Hypocrites. Are you seriously telling us that a man whose principle legacy is a tsunami of lies, and attendant damage to this Republic and its Constitution is above criticism because he says "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it." As Benjamin Disraeli the Conservative British Prime Minister of Britain (and creator of the modern Conservative Party) once noted: "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy”. Spare us all your (self) righteous indignation, grow up, and get a life.
HANNITY AND ROVE ,liars extrodinary.
How could Hannity bring up the subject of government corruption, conflicts-of-interest or pay-for-play without getting into the enormous mountain of GOP scandals marring the last eight years? He has been railing for "transparency" and for Obama to immediately make public records of any correspondence between he and Gov. Blagojevich - meanwhile he looks the other way when reporters call for Bush to turn over White House visitor logs even after Jack ABramoff has already publicly admitted he and Bush had a close personal relationship.
Do Hannity listeners not see the biased, partisan double standard?