Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
CLINTONS TIED TO REZKO
Clinton's national co-chair received donations from RezkoThree of the co-defendants at Rezko trial contributed to Clintons and campaign supporters. Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko.
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html
Clintons got money from Rezko co-defendants by margieburns on Sat 02 Feb 2008 01:26 PM EST
Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama.
Rezko’s trial is scheduled to begin March 3. The legal cases comprise several indictments of Chicago political and business figures on multiple counts of fraud, extortion and kickbacks. Rezko’s co-defendants include Chicago businessman Stuart Levine; construction executive and Chicago Medical School trustee Jacob Kiferbaum, who is cooperating with the investigation, and Bear Stearns executive P. Nicholas Hurtgen; and attorneys Joseph Cari and Steven Loren, doing business for the Teachers’ Retirement System. Mr. Loren has not been a significant donor.
All the major donors were obviously cruising for receptive politicians, whom they found. Setting aside any presumption of guilt, there was clearly more than enough money as well as blame to go around. Neither party has a monopoly on the big donations in Chicago in spite of its dominant Democratic machine. A quick search on Mitt Romney, for example, in Illinois turns up a result list that cuts off at 1000 donors—and that’s IF you limit the search to individual contributions over $2300.
Only public financing of elections, backed up by laws that have teeth in them, will ameliorate this condition.
Meanwhile—That Rezko donated over the years like a political junkie, and may have been one, has already been written about by Buzzflash. Rezko himself gave mostly to Dems, with the largest amts going to central committees, other donations to national figures incl GWBush ($4000), and frequent contributions over the years to IL politicians incl Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and former senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Peter Fitzgerald as well as the donations to Barack Obama that Hillary Clinton pointed out.
Predictably, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that the national co-chair of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigo, also got Rezko donations.
(Link to the rest of the story.)
There is a pattern emerging regarding Clinton campaign tactics: NAFTA/CANADA and REZKO implicate the Clintons, not Obama.
So the Clintons flip their involvement in these two scandals and blame Obama.
How did this story, published at the beginning of February get overlooked?
Comments (20)
In case you didn't know Tony Rezko is the guy in the middle.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Tony_Rezko_Hillary_Clinton.jpg
March 6, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko. "
What planet are you on? From the NYT:
"Since early June, Mr. Obama has given to charity more than $21,000 in donations that his Senate campaign had received from Rezko associates now linked to the federal inquiries. He gave away $11,500 from Mr. Rezko himself last fall."
March 6, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters. Use the contact pages on CNN.com and MSNBC.com to write letters demanding they start covering this primary fairly and "vetting" Clinton with questions just like this, as well as the campaing finance issues in the LA Times, the Canadian NAFTA scandal, and demanding her taxes/finances be disclosed. DEMAND EQUAL TIME!
March 6, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were a Macquiavelian guy I would send it to Fox News which will gladly publish it. But I still have a conscience...
March 6, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Johnnytobad that it would seem dubious that Obama's campaign did not receive any contributions from Rezko or his associates since deciding to run for the nomination. Did he not give somehting like 150K to charity because it came from Rezko and his associates? Maybe I remeber this wrong but can you point me to a link.
To the point of the post, I would agree with you that if it pans out that Clinton took contributions then did not give back that money, I would conclude that yet again Clinton has failed to take responsability for her words and that she lacks a certain sense of integrity. I mean one of the things I really like about Obama is the fact that when he screws up he admits it as a mistake, where as you have to drag and fight to get Mrs.Clinton to do the same!
Your thoughts.
March 6, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not have the link, but I think most, if not all Rezko donations were for his Senate campaign.
Ask Google.
March 7, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, this is so not a story. This guy gave to lots of people and he apparently has done some bad things. But there is no evidence that either Obama or Clinton engaged in anything untoward. The "sweetheart" real estate deal seems to be quite on the up and up from what I can see.
Besides, until there is some sex involved, I don't see people paying attention. :)
March 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
TaraV, I do not mean to nitpick because I actually agree with your statement, "But there is no evidence that either Obama or Clinton engaged in anything untoward.", the problem is that she is making a big deal of something trying to create the appearence of a double-standard. But the real double-standard is that she knows this yet she ran with it anyways. There is no use crying over spilt-milk but it would seem that MrsClintons claim that she is the more substantive candidate should also include that much of her substance over the last week leading up to the March 4th election was the lack of it in the place of rhetoric or posturing that turned out to be completely false. Why does she do this? I know she is a politician but seriously she is smarter than this but it confirms my doubts about her as a leader that can really be taken for their word. I am tired of leaders that throw truth under the bus when it suits them but I understand that this is part of politics.
March 6, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA-GATE was a big problem for the Clintons. The tactic they use is to take that issue, and point it in the direction of Obama. The MSM dwells on it, and basically takes the wind out of the story so that when it boomerangs right back to Clinton, there's less interest and the story fades.
As we're learning now, same is happening with REZKO.
Same thing happened when Hillary accused Obama of not having one meeting on Afghanistan since he's been on the sub-committee.
It boomeranged, and as it turns out, the Armed Services committee that Hillary is on had two meetings on Afghanistan.
She was absent both times.
March 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was a key supporter in two of Obama's early races and Obama describes him as a friend. Michelle Obama sat on the Chicago Landmark Commission during the period in which that commission allowed the owner to split the lot from the house -- thus reducing the gracious lot that went with the mansion which is one of the noted characteristics of the Kenwood Landmark District the hosue is located in. Making the split then did put the house in the Obama's price range.
The whole house situation is very odd: Rezko did do a favor in that the lot was not builty on and Obama was able to buy it for what Rezko paid -- without interest.
The realtor for the seller was recommended by Rezko for a state board but says she didn't know that he did this.
Obama describing the situation doesn't reveal that he an Rezko toured the house together. Just says he asked Rezko and some 4 others about it.
There is a heck of lot that the national press have not yet looked at and when they tried all Obama did was stutter at them.
March 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko theory debunked
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627
Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama"s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that"s the key issue here.
Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama's real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven"t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."
Of course one boneheaded mistake when he was a young lawyer, and nothing but squeaky clean afterwards, will convince the Clinton people. They have done the “six degrees of Kevin Bacon" (or in this case Rezko) on him. Anyone who even remotely knew Rezko and contributed to Obama’s campaign is now considered suspect.
This is the only thing they can bring up. Talk about destructive politics. I suppose you have to accuse your opponent of doing something that you are really guilty of yourself
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
March 6, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. This mistake was made in June 2005 which is when they closed on that house.
March 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the point of this? This sounds just like republicans who claim their guy can't be guilty of anything because democrats do it too. So is this to try and claim Obama isn't as guilty of being close friends with Rezko for years and being involved with him as deeply as he was because some of his friends gave once to the Clinton campaign? Sorry, but Obama is not involved in the court case and is not being charged with any criminal activity or anything else. So..................
March 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohh my god, millions of people donate to political campaigns. you think they know who everyone is? OBAMA accepted a great deal of money from rezco and returned the majority of it if i recall correctly due the look of impropriety. just because he donated to other politicians means nothing and you folks have been really grabbing at straws lately to the point of looking pathetic and desperate. hillary has a claim about knowing more about rezco and there is more than enough to looking into with hilliary and her donor problems but please stop with the idiotic back an forth on this site as you folks are starting to do more damage to OBAMA to turn voters off to OBAMA with your rabid postings than anything the rezco issue can do. GROW UP!
March 6, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disappointing.
Disappointing, because it is bull. Reading the bottom of Ms. Burns' post reveals that the following contributions from ONE co-defendant to Hillary:
--$1000 in 2000
--$1000 in 2003. Per Ms. Burns, "apparently returned".
--two small (presumably, because Ms. Burns did not list the amounts) contributions to HillPAC in 2002.
Two of the co-defendants also apparently donated $1,000 each to Bill Clinton in 1995.
That's it. A pathetic attempt, and it is pathetic that this month-old post got picked up and featured on TPM's page today.
March 6, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Helllooo... there is NO THERE, THERE!
March 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire Rezco thing is nonsense. In regard to Obama, where's the beef? It's just guilt by association, not even a hint of actual courruption or personal benefit that hasn't been fully vetted and debunked.
As for Rezco and Clinton, it's downright silly to use the Rezco 6 contributions to Clinton as a "charge" -- even more ridiculous than using it to smear Obama. Particularly when there is so much material to work with that is infinitely sleazier:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
You gotta hand it to her. If it is a gutter fight in November, there is nobody who can fight slime with slime like she can. But if McCain runs against Hillary and takes the high road, as I expect him to, she will get shredded on sleaze in ways that could never happen with Obama. And that's a fact.
March 6, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is tiring. Again another situation where Clinton can do no right and Obama can do no wrong. Even if he bought his house and a lot under dubious circumstances from a crook. Obama is a politican and acts accordingly.
March 7, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is tiring. Again another situation where Clinton can do no right and Obama can do no wrong. Even if he bought his house and a lot under dubious circumstances from a crook. Obama is a politican and acts accordingly.
March 7, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shocking -- from the Clintwellians -- projection, transference, diversion -- 1984 is redux'ed in 2008 - in all its schizophrenic glory.
Alice in Wonderland - rabbit hole - looking glass -- anyone? Ground control to...
I'd been using Orwell for so long re Shrub - black = white, up = down -- until now -- I see the ironic perfection of the Atwater/Rove twist by our very own brethren. Jeez - we hardly knew ye -- et tu -- & all that traitor jazz.
And isn't that how it always happens in the Twilight Zone? Serling shows you so busy looking, steeling yourself for & defending against the threat by your labeled enemies -- that you miss the fact that the most lethal are those lurking in your own home.
Anyone not completely disturbed, disgusted, wounded -- & poised for the need to fumigate the Dem party house - is a delusional sad pod.
March 7, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment