Why Barack Obama should be indicted
Part 8
One or more of the following events should happen:
- Obama steps down.
- Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
- Obama is indicted and/or arrested.
If one of the above does not occur within a few months,
perhaps we should look to the Declaration of Independence
or Thomas Jefferson, for our next strategy.
Many great writers such as Evelyn Pringle and many bloggers and
websites have attempted to reveal the truth about Barack Obama by
early 2008 and in some cases past years. Very little coverage about Obama
has made it to the MSM except for the articles in the Chicago Tribune,
Sun-Times and a few other papers. Fox News has been the only major
TV outlet to attempt to uncover the real Obama. Barack Obama has long
time ties to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois. His guilt
and ties are every bit as strong as recently arrested Rod Blagojevich.
The Citizen Wells blog will be revisiting older news stories about Obama
and presenting them in the new light of Chicago corruption that is before
the public as a result of the Tony Rezko trial and Blagojevich
investigation and prosecution. After reading a few of the articles the
following will be clear.
One or more of the following events should happen:
- Obama steps down.
- Obama is forced to prove eligibility.
- Obama is indicted and/or arrested.
If one of the above does not occur within a few months, perhaps we
should look to the Declaration of Independence or Thomas Jefferson,
for our next strategy.
The following is from an article written by looseheadprop on February 6,
2008. As you read the article, consider this biographical description
provided by looseheadprop ( a Democrat ):
“About Me:
In rugby, the loosheadprop is the player in the front row of the scrum, who has the ability to collapse the scrum, pretty much at will and without the referee knowing who did it. While this can give the LHP’s team a great tactical advantage, it also exposes scrum players from both teams to the dangers of catastrophic spinal cord injury. Consequently, playing this position makes you understand your responsibility to put doing the right thing ahead of winning, and to think beyond your own wants and desires. It also makes you very law and order oriented. I am a former federal prosecutor who also served at other levels of government, both in civil and criminal law, including as Counsel to an Inspector General. These days, I’m a a soccer mom and a partner in a small law practice with a buddy of mine from the US Attorney’s Office.”
Article
“I have long been an admirer of Ms. Kennedy’s and I think she has point. Problem is, Obama has a Tony Rezko problem. Actually a whole bunch of Tony Rezko problems. And a few other problems here and there which do not say very good things about his character or his sense of ethics or his ability to spot the appearance of impropriety. I include on that list the recent revelations about the legislation which he claims to have “passed” relating to leakage of nuclear material into drinking water.
REZKO
When Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezko interviewed him for a job working for one of Rezko’s companies. Obama turned down the job, but instead accepted more indirect employment at the law firm representing a series of Rezko’s not-for-profit partners in the series of transactions to build and rehab low income housing that are now the subject of federal indictment in Chicago which US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described as “pay to play on steroids.”
Obama was an attorney with a small Chicago law firm — Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland — that helped Rezmar get more than $43 million in government funding to rehab 15 of their 30 apartment buildings for the poor.
Resko got millions of dollars to build and rehab low income housing and according to the government, embezzled the money. The people in those houses had no heat, no water. They lived in squalor–many in Obama’s State senate district. You could assume constituent complaints would have come in and Obama’s law firm did the legal work for those government contracts and grants. Yet he denies knowing about it.”
“Barack Obama, for his part, went to Rezko for “advice” about how to buy a house he cannot afford and “poof” Rezko’s wife pays full price for a portion of the property and Obama gets a discount on the house. A while later, he bought back 1/6 of the lot from her for 1/6 of the price she paid for it. How is that different from an interest free loan equal to the amount paid for that 1/6 of the lot? According to MyDD, Obama pays for the landscaping of the Rezko lot and may have been using it to park his cars because his neighborhood does not allow on street parking, in which case how is this different from rent free occupancy of the land?”
“One of the things that came out about Abramoff et al. was that they would invite Congress critters to play poker and wine and dine in a hotel suite that the lobbyist paid for, and then let them win. It was a way of passing money to them without leaving a paper trail. The Chicago events were hosted at the HQ of a lobbying organization, I think it’s fair to assume that the cocktails and Cohibas were provided by the hosts and the article makes a point of saying that he was a stingy better and a cautious player–directly suggesting that he seldom lost. And what kind of message are you sending joking about the game being a “Committee Meeting”?
One of the reasons public corruption cases, at least the bribery part, are often so hard to prove is that the participants go to great lengths to have a “beard” for the transactions. Paying for vacations, losing at poker, doing repairs on the elected’s house without any invoices, throwing business to the elected’s (or their relative’s) law firms or companies, regularly taking the elected out for very expensive meals is known as soft bribery. In the Bess Meyerson case, which the government lost, the bribe was a job for the judge’s otherwise unemployable daughter.
Unless someone flips and gives you testimony, or unless, as in Operation Greylord, you have audio or video tapes, it’s really really hard to get a conviction because there usually is not much of a paper trail. Since there wouldn’t even be hotel records for the Chicago games, they are particulary fuzzy.”
“As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko’s successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.
In that deal Rezko paid only $1 for the land. The rest of the deal, which included an $800,000 development fee paid to Rezko’s company, was entirely financed by public money.”
“Was it simply enough that Obama didn’t make waves about the lack of heat and deplorable conditions in the Rezko buildings situated within Obama’s state senate district? I don’t know. But I was struck by a comment Obama made in the debate on of the debates to the effect of “you know how Illinois politics are” or some such. Followed later on by
Nobody’s hands are perfectly clean in politics. That is true. I mean, there a distinction, though, between not taking PAC and federal lobbyist money and having that as a major way of driving your campaign and having some ancillary involvement.”
Comments below the article
“looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm 40
In response to Siun @ 13
Sorry Siun, maybe I just assumed eveybody would get the Abramoff reference. It’s not a leap at all.
Abramoff as you may recall did his bribery often in subtle ways, He took his “friends” on all expense paid luxury vacations/ he took his “golfing buddies” to play at St. Andrews, on him, er, his clients
He and other lobbyists would rent out hotel suites and with free flowing liquor and food, “lose” at poker to people from Capitol Hill.
The “Committee Meetings” seem even more brazen in that they took place in the actual building of a lobbying organization and because of the name.”
“looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm 62
In response to Siun @ 18
As much as the house deal troubles me-and folks you really DO want to click through to the MyDD piece. It’s obvious a lot of research hours went into it–the “committee Meetings” disturb me even more.
Rezko is just one bad guy. The Committee Meeting has all sorts of potenial. It’s an instinctive reaction, not per se based on fact. But if I were still a public corruption investigator I would want to know a lot more about those poker games.”
“looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm 87
In response to martha @ 51
Yes, the house deal looks bad, but the rest is quite circumstantial. Friendship with slumlord = crook.
I know slumlords. Am I a crook?
I never said friendship with a slumlord = crook. Don’t put a strawman argument in my mouth. I said that Obama is telling us to ignore the fact that he doesn’t have much of record to run on or much experience and instead to trust in his character.
That was the thrust of Caroline Kennedy’s argument on his behalf, ignore the other stuff and concentrate on his judgement and character.
Opposing the war and opposing land mines are examples of good judgement on his part.
Voting to fund the war, voting present during votes relating to a woman’s right to choose, hanging out at poker games in a lobbyist’s stronghold while imbibing the lobbyists’ liquor and cigars, APPROACHING a guy already publicly known to be under federal investigation for fraud and asking that guy for help in buying a house you cannot afford–and then accepting the equivalent of both an interest free loan and a rent free use of the the property the guy bought to help you out with your PERSONAL FINANCIAL transaction?
Examples of bad judgment and lack of character”
” looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm 123
In response to JoeBuck @ 73
I was trying to rebut paragraph by paragraph but the site keeps hanging up for me. And I am falling WAYY behind in reading the subsequent comments.
I stand behind my belief that someone as bright as Obama HAD TO KNOW how bad those poker games looked. There is a phrase used in government ethics (and until recently I sat as a voting member on a government ethics commsion) there is an actual legal standard called
“Appearance of impropriety”
The mere fact of these games, and their cheeky nickname “committee meetings” (committe of what? to do what?) certainly meets that standard.”
“looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm 137
In response to Scarecrow @ 92
Actually all I am trying to do, is get this stuff out now, on Dem terms.
Christy mentioned it above, it is trial tactics 101: Whatever problems your witness has, the jury better hear it from your side before the other side can play gotcha.
Obama would be a fool to think that the Rovians won’t go after him with this yet he has done virtually nothing to innoculate against it”
“looseheadprop February 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm 187
In response to martha @ 141
If you mean why did Obama go to work for a firm that he was clearly overqualified for? This firm has had a spotty ethical history (one of the law firm’s partners left to become a partner of Rezko’s)
It’s not like he was doing something altruistic by joining this firm. It’s not like he went to work for the SCLU or Legal Aid.
I don’t think it equates with your not-for-profit service. BTW, Brava”
“looseheadprop February 7th, 2008 at 4:07 am 290
In response to Siun @ 214
The partner began working in Land develpoment with Rezko while the firm was still reprsenting the not for profits in the land deals –a clear conflict of interest, which is why the partner had to leave.
That kind of conlfict of interst is a violation of legal ethics which in most states (and I believe in Illinois) is written in law. So yeah, that’s an example of spotty ethical history”
“looseheadprop February 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am 326
In response to CasualObserver @ 300
LHP, by the quote above, I take it that you wrote this piece to actually protect Obama in a sense? In other words, knowing how rough things will get, you want to air this out now.
And not the alternative context, which would be that you support Hillary Clinton, and have written this piece in order to assist her campaign
I am not trying to protect Obama or Hillary per se. I am trying to prevent the election of a GOP candidate in November”
“looseheadprop February 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am 362
In response to Flavius @ 353
Thanks. I’m not sure why you think the voting “present” isn’t an example of not great character. It’s not henious, but it’s not admirable either.
The law firm’s actions, I do find very troubling. And I’m not sure we know the whole story about the firm and these not for profits, which apparently didn’t exist until Obama incorporated them. Where they incorporated soley to partner up with Rezko? And if they were actual functioning independant groups, how is it that they all coincidently went to the same law firm?
And yes, a partenr becoming involved with Rezko’s underlying business while still at the firm, is a clear conflict of interest.
So, I think sleazy –which does not = violation of law, but does connote suspect practices is prabably the right word”
Read more here:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/
Consider the following:
Obama’s role in rigging the IL Health Board
Citizen WElls 