Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

Chicago Tribune, Factcheck.Org, Washington Post: Obama Never Represented Tony Rezko

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

FactCheck.org On Clinton's Claim Obama Represented Rezko: "That's Untrue." Factcheck.org reported, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was 'representing ... Rezko.' That's untrue." [FactCheck.org, 1/21/08]

Chicago Tribune Review Of "Land And Court Document And Law Firm Files As Well As Correspondence And Other Records...Supports [Obama's] Contention That He Did Not Directly Represent Rezko's Development Firm." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama angrily rejected Clinton's accusation at Monday's Democratic debate. And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm. Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm." [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]

Tribune Examined Miner Barnhill's "260 Civil And Criminal Cases," IHDA And DOH Files, Clients From Obama's "Unusually Frank Ethics Disclosure Reports" And Found Obama Represented The Non-Profit Partner. The Chicago Tribune reported, "At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company." [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]

Washington Post Fact Check: "Investigations By Chicago Newspapers Have Not Produced Evidence That [Obama] Represented Rezko In A Slum Landlord Business." The Washington Post reported, "William Miceli, Obama's supervisor at the law firm, said the firm represented the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a nonprofit group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side with Rezko. He called Clinton's assertion that Obama represented Rezko in a slum landlord business 'categorically untrue. He was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review,' said Miceli, adding that Obama did what he was told by the firm. According to Miceli, that was the only time Obama worked on a Rezko-related project while at the law firm…But investigations by Chicago newspapers have not produced evidence that he represented Rezko in a slum landlord business. What has been demonstrated so far is that he did some due diligence legal work for a joint venture between Rezko and a Chicago nonprofit. Two Pinocchios for Clinton." [Washington Post, 1/22/08]

MINER: OBAMA DID MINOR WORK REPRESENTING THE NON-PROFIT

Miner: Obama Filed Incorporation Papers For The Non-Profits. The AP reported, "Attorneys there say Obama never represented Rezko directly. The future senator did represent community organizations that were Rezko partners in rehabilitating buildings to provide apartments for the poor…Judson Miner, a partner in the firm, said that Obama's role was small. He said Obama did perhaps six or seven hours of work on such projects, mainly filing incorporation papers for the nonprofit groups." [AP, 1/22/08]

Obama Said That Miner Barnhill "Was Representing The Non-For-Profit Partner, Where There's No Allegations That They Did Anything Wrong." Obama said, "My law firm was representing the non for profit partner, where there's no allegations that they did anything wrong. They were simply trying to develop non for profit housing in the district." [Fox News, 4/24/07]

Obama Said That Miner Barnhill Was "Brought In Through [The Non-Profits], Not Through Rezko." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Responding to a Chicago Sun-Times report that Obama's former law firm did legal work for Rezko's low-income housing development business, the Illinois senator said he performed five hours of work on behalf of non-profit housing groups that partnered with Rezko. 'We were brought in through them [the non-profits], not through Rezko,' Obama said." [Chicago Tribune, 4/24/07]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven,

None of this matters anymore. The dirt has stuck. MSNBC just reported Obama's approval in white voters in SC is down to 8%, from 20+ a week ago. The dirt has stuck, his candidacy is over.

I always thought it would be this easy to smear a black man with the GOP base. Apparently, the Dem base isn't much better.


Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven,

None of this matters anymore. The dirt has stuck. MSNBC just reported Obama's approval in white voters in SC is down to 8%, from 20+ a week ago. The dirt has stuck, his candidacy is over.

I always thought it would be this easy to smear a black man with the GOP base. Apparently, the Dem base isn't much better.

I hope you are wrong. If the Democratic Party doesn't take a stand and tell the Clinton campaign to cool it with the dirty politics, then they are going to lose a lot of voters. Dammit! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven,

None of this matters anymore. The dirt has stuck. MSNBC just reported Obama's approval in white voters in SC is down to 8%, from 20+ a week ago. The dirt has stuck, his candidacy is over.

I always thought it would be this easy to smear a black man with the GOP base. Apparently, the Dem base isn't much better.

I hope you are wrong. If the Democratic Party doesn't take a stand and tell the Clinton campaign to cool it with the dirty politics, then they are going to lose a lot of voters. Dammit! :angry:

All I know is this has convinced me to show up on Tuesday, declare myself as a Democrat (I'm an Independent right now) and put in a vote for Barack. I have no illusions that my vote will make a difference (NJ is Clinton country) but I'll feel better about it.

Edited by VJ Troll

Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steven,

None of this matters anymore. The dirt has stuck. MSNBC just reported Obama's approval in white voters in SC is down to 8%, from 20+ a week ago. The dirt has stuck, his candidacy is over.

I always thought it would be this easy to smear a black man with the GOP base. Apparently, the Dem base isn't much better.

I hope you are wrong. If the Democratic Party doesn't take a stand and tell the Clinton campaign to cool it with the dirty politics, then they are going to lose a lot of voters. Dammit! :angry:

All I know is this has convinced me to show up on Tuesday, declare myself as a Democrat (I'm an Independent right now) and put in a vote for Barack. I have no illusions that my vote will make a difference (NJ is Clinton country) but I'll feel better about it.

You get my respect for that. But I really hope Obama can recover from the lies coming from Clinton's camp. ARGH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for Hillary getting the black vote if she wins the nomination. The black voters will stay away in droves come November. Or, better yet, Bloomberg will run and they will vote for him.

I wish that were true, but her campaign is smart....they are going with what they know works, and you know, Gary, they're doing what Republicans are known for doing - deliberately misrepresenting an opponent. Dirty politics work ...to a degree. I'm hoping that enough prominent members in the Democratic Party will speak out against it. We need Al Gore to speak out against what the Clinton's are doing or Howard Dean.

Edited by Mister Fancypants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for Hillary getting the black vote if she wins the nomination. The black voters will stay away in droves come November. Or, better yet, Bloomberg will run and they will vote for him.

I wish that were true, but her campaign is smart....they are going with what they know works, and you know, Gary, they're doing what Republicans are known for doing - deliberately misrepresenting an opponent. Dirty politics work ...to a degree. I'm hoping that enough prominent members in the Democratic Party will speak out against it. We need Al Gore to speak out against what the Clinton's are doing or Howard Dean.

Well, I always associated the dems with dirty politics and mud slinging so I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

But IMHO Hillary just traded getting the nomination for winning the general election. I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable. Politics, no matter which side you are on, will always bring out the worst in people. It's just the nature of the beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

If Hillary were running without Obama she would easly win the nomination and probably be president. If Obama were running without Hillary he would probably win the nomination and probably be president. But with them both trying it at the same time simple human nature will come out and at least half of the voting population will feel insulted by what went on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I always associated the dems with dirty politics and mud slinging so I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

But IMHO Hillary just traded getting the nomination for winning the general election. I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable. Politics, no matter which side you are on, will always bring out the worst in people. It's just the nature of the beast.

I suppose that 'dirty' is up to one's interpretation. Both parties have used wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, war) to galvanize their base, but unless you can point out specific instances during an election campaign where a Democrat deliberately misrepresented their opponent's position, the Republican Party over the last couple of decades have the corner market on dirty politics. From the Willie Horton ads to the phone calls telling voters in the south that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child...the Republicans have succeeded like no other party in using dirty tactics to scare voters away from a particular candidate.

I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

If Hillary were running without Obama she would easly win the nomination and probably be president. If Obama were running without Hillary he would probably win the nomination and probably be president. But with them both trying it at the same time simple human nature will come out and at least half of the voting population will feel insulted by what went on.

Good point.

Edited by Mister Fancypants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I always associated the dems with dirty politics and mud slinging so I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

But IMHO Hillary just traded getting the nomination for winning the general election. I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable. Politics, no matter which side you are on, will always bring out the worst in people. It's just the nature of the beast.

I suppose that 'dirty' is up to one's interpretation. Both parties have used wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, war) to galvanize their base, but unless you can point out specific instances during an election campaign where a Democrat deliberately misrepresented their opponent's position, the Republican Party over the last couple of decades have the corner market on dirty politics. From the Willie Horton ads to the phone calls telling voters in the south that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child...the Republicans have succeeded like no other party in using dirty tactics to scare voters away from a particular candidate.

The reps have been more up front about it I will grant you but what Hillary just did is classic Clinton.

ETA I find all politics to be "dirty". Some just more so than others.

Edited by GaryC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

If Hillary were running without Obama she would easly win the nomination and probably be president. If Obama were running without Hillary he would probably win the nomination and probably be president. But with them both trying it at the same time simple human nature will come out and at least half of the voting population will feel insulted by what went on.

Still. Not. Making. Sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

If Hillary were running without Obama she would easly win the nomination and probably be president. If Obama were running without Hillary he would probably win the nomination and probably be president. But with them both trying it at the same time simple human nature will come out and at least half of the voting population will feel insulted by what went on.

Still. Not. Making. Sense.

Can you elaborate? Makes perfect sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am all in favor of a woman president or a black president but the dems made the mistake of trying both at once. Something like this was inevatable.

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

If Hillary were running without Obama she would easly win the nomination and probably be president. If Obama were running without Hillary he would probably win the nomination and probably be president. But with them both trying it at the same time simple human nature will come out and at least half of the voting population will feel insulted by what went on.

Still. Not. Making. Sense.

I think I understand where Gary is coming from. He believes that the Democratic Party is more unified and that if they came together with the common goal - to place a Democrat in the White House, they could forge alliances (such as with Obama and Clinton) that would have much better success than dividing the party. His point is valid.

Edited by Mister Fancypants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×