Bloomberg News: Obama Bought Property Without Rezko Discount

February 18, 2008

Guest Post by dnA

For months, reporters have been digging around a land deal between Barack Obama and indicted political fixer Tony Rezko. Despite article after article finding no legal wrongdoing (but suggesting that some was at hand) Obama’s political opponents have continued to use the event to suggest the Senator somehow did something illegal.

Now, the couple that the Obamas actually bought their property from has come out and said the Obamas got the property because they offered the best price for it.

The 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 bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama’s presidential campaign and the seller.

[…]

The sellers hadn’t previously made their side of the story public out of concern for their privacy, according to Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign. They approached Obama’s Senate office 15 months ago and agreed to break their silence now through the campaign out of concern that the story was being distorted in the media, Burton said.

[…]

The e-mail says that the sellers “did not offer or give the Obamas a `discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.” It also says that “in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,” Obama and his wife, Michelle, “made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.”

The report proves that there is little substance (not that there ever was any to begin with) to the repeated suggestions that the Obamas behaved improperly in buying said property. But given the fact-free generic attack plan the Republicans were touting yesterday, and the heated state of the primary race, this may not go away soon the way it should.

H/T: John Cole

But given the fact-free generic attack plan the Republicans were touting yesterday… -dnA

You’re being unnecessarily redundant when you use the words ‘fact-free’ and ‘Republicans’ in the same sentence. 🙂

I certainly hope this puts and end to all of the Rezko concern trolling (which Hillary initiated herself). I know it won’t.

  • doubtful, it is sometimes necessary to differentiate between the fact-free generic attack plan of the Republicans and the fact-free generic attack plan of the Clintonicans, due to their overwhelming similarities….

  • One of the most disturbing aspects to the politics involved here comes from the Politico story linked by ” fact-free generic attack plan”.

    “The RNC’s “winter retreat” for major donors at Los Angeles’ Beverly Wilshire Hotel featured such party stalwarts as Karl Rove, RNC chairman Robert Duncan, former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams, as well as some Hollywood types, including Dave Berg, a segment producer and “political director” for “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno.”

    I wonder how Leno feels about that. I know I don’t like the idea that program producers are coordinating their jokes with campaigns.

  • Jay, being Jay, likely has another segment producer who is a rabid Democrat and closely connected to some part of the other side. My bet would be a connection to the DNC (like this one is to the RNC) so as to be attached and connected no matter who the nominee is. I don’t say that as an attack – Leno may have gotten “connected” to Schwarzenegger as governor when he presided at Arnold’s coronation and all, but he found right after that that it did harm his ratings. He has to be an equal-opportunity kidder to keep the audience he does. His wife, however, is as strong a Democrat as Maria Shriver is (and I think she supports the same candidate, but not as publicly).

    Yer Hollyweird Reporter now returns you to your regularly-scheduled mudslinging.

  • I defer to our Hollywood insider. But isn’t this a bit like embed journalism? Like, “Dave, it would help us if you focus on the Rezko land deal this week. McCain can’t do Rezko without having people throw Keating in his face. And see if you can’t kill any criticism of McCain’s flip-flopping and pandering. “Old” jokes are OK though.”

  • Bloomberg left out one of the main points involved in the transaction, i.e. that the seller wanted the house and adjacent land sold at same time. That’s where Obama’s crooked pal Rezko comes in, and helped Obama buy the house by buying the adjacent lot.

  • The 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 bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama’s presidential campaign and the seller. — Bloomberg, via dnA

    3 possible spins, just off the top of my head:
    1) They’re lying! He’s bought them off!
    2) My God! He so wanted to live next door to a criminal, he paid top price for the house!
    3) the one Seaberry brings up, @6: the dirt’s not in the *house* deal! It’s in the *land* deal!

    Sigh… As we used to say in Poland: “when you want to hit a dog, you can always find a stick”

  • So in January 2005 “Rezko’s wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price. In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000.”

    In less than 2 years time Mrs. Rezko made $54,500 on a $625,000 investment and somehow this was a favor to Obama? That just doesn’t wash. Won’t stop Taylor Marsh from lying about it though.

  • Danp (#5): so far as I have ever been aware, jokes to specific issues in a campaign only make their way into the late night monologues when there’s something ridiculous to point out. The likelihood of getting something on because “McCain can’t say it” is remote because it would be “the third rail” ratings-wise if it ever became known (and if it did happen – either way, D or R – someone from the opposite side who had the inside knowledge would be sure to make it public knowledge).

    I say all that having never worked in late night but knowing a few writers who have.

  • Hey Tom Cleaver, I want to talk to you about something OT. Would you email me at: gulliver at pacbell dot net? Thanks.

  • ===Bloomberg left out one of the main points involved in the transaction, i.e. that the seller wanted the house and adjacent land sold at same time. That’s where Obama’s crooked pal Rezko comes in, and helped Obama buy the house by buying the adjacent lot.

    Can you read:

    ===The e-mail between Wondisford and the campaign adviser also says that the sellers had “stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same.” In January 2006, Rita Rezko sold the Obamas one-sixth of the lot, for $104,500, to expand their yard. She later sold the rest of the land to Michael Sreenan, who said by e-mail yesterday that he bought it in late December 2006 for $575,000.

    And of course, the real estate agent confirmed there were other offers for the plot of land not much lower than what Rezko paid for it, so, in fact, there was no need to have Rezko purchase the vacant lot–someone else would have.

  • This sounds like a lot of sturm und drang for nothing. From what I can see, Obama’s got a campaign contributor who, as far as we know, he doesn’t know is in any kind of legal hot water (didn’t Rezko’s troubles surface after all this?). So Obama’s in a pickle: he wants to buy the house but not the lot, and the seller wants to sell both at the same time. His contributor Rezko sees an opportunity to make a few bucks, legitimately, by flipping that piece of land. So he buys the lot, sells a chunk off to Obama, then sells the rest. Makes a tidy but certainly not unreasonable profit in the course of the deal. The person who sold the lot got what he/she wanted for both house and lot, Obama got his house and the little piece he wanted, and Rezko made a few bucks. Just because later on it turns out that Rezko is in trouble for something completely unrelated to this, I fail to see where the wrongdoing is here. Am I missing something?

    • Comments are closed.