Rezko Trial Continues

By Jeralyn, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:36:34 AM EST
Tags: Tony Rezko, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The corruption trial of Tony Rezko continued Monday. At one point, Barack Obama's name surfaced in connection with recommendations for job appointments:

Obama's name surfaced briefly Monday as Rezko's lawyers introduced a series of e-mail exchanges in June 2003 involving lobbyist Matthew Pickering, Blagojevich lawyer Susan Lichtenstein and Monk, then the governor's chief of staff.

Pickering worked in the lobbying firm of David Wilhelm, who ran Blagojevich's 2002 campaign. In one e-mail, Pickering laid out a list of four people he and Wilhelm wanted Blagojevich to consider for appointment to the hospital planning board. Pickering also mentioned that the firm had worked closely with several top legislators, Obama included, in pushing legislation to overhaul the hospital board.

Lawyers for Rezko said the e-mail did not suggest a connection between Obama and the candidates pushed by Wilhelm for the hospital panel.

The New York Times reports on the e-mail:[More...]

The message indicated that Mr. Obama, now a Democratic presidential candidate, and other top Illinois politicians consulted in 2003 on legislation to keep the board, which approved the construction of health facilities, from expiring under sunset provisions in state law.

The vaguely worded message also seemed to raise the possibility that Mr. Obama, who at the time was chairman of the Illinois Senate’s health committee, had been involved in recommending candidates for the board.

....David Wilhelm, a former campaign adviser to Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois who asked that the e-mail message be written, said in an interview that he had never talked about the appointment process to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama has said he had nothing to do with Mr. Rezko’s activities with the board.

So Obama wasn't consulted for the job recommendations. But, isn't he the candidate continually bashing ties to lobbyists? Why was he, as a state legislator, working with Wilhem's lobbying company "in pushing legislation to overhaul the hospital board?"

< The Mann Act and Should Spitzer Resign? | Super Delegates Will Decide The Nomination Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Rezko Trial Continues | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Prabhata on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:52:58 AM EST

Obama displays the common hypocrisy that seems rampant with todays politicians.

You really are being quite uncivil (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:03:05 AM EST

The Rezko trial is at the early stages. I suspect that it is quite upsetting for Obama supporters to be waiting for that proverbial shoe to drop. Seventeen years of association (friendship?) with Rezko, you never know when something takes on a more significant impact, deservedly or underservedly just because Obama is a candidate for the presidency. Sometimes, it's best to just let the facts unfold. Then we'll be looking at facts instead of speculations.

Jeralyn has never asserted that Brack is corrrupt (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:11:53 AM EST

if any, she has maintained that the Rezko thing is a non-issue. This site has been quite helpful in taking note of items in the media that might impact the elections.

You don't have to resort to name calling. Not only is it offensive, it indicates a certain weakness in your rationale. If you are an Obama supporter, which I suspect you are, it might have the opposite effect if your intention is to attract people over to you side.

: the poster you are responding to (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST

has been erased and banned. Six comments in a row that were accusatory, uncivil, and off topic of the Rezko trial.

Oh please. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:08:41 AM EST

The position of the vast majority of people here is that, in fact, Florida and Michigan should be defeated by the DNC and forced to produce new delegations according to the DNC rules.

That appears to be what's going to happen.

The idea, proposed by people who don't appear to be thinking about November, the future of the Democratic Party, or elemental fairness, that Florida and Michigan cannot do what the DNC actually wants them to do (re-vote) is absurd.

No, you have to parse what Obama says (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by ding7777 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:53:59 AM EST

But, isn't he the candidate continually bashing ties to lobbyists

Obama's against federal lobbyists; state lobbyists are a-ok.

: federal lobbyists funded Sen. Obama (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST

until he entered the presidential race. And even during his push for lobbying reform in 2006 - they were funding his career.
If Edwards hadn't been in the race, many speculate lobbyists would have never been an issue. But on the campaign trail, Obama implies he's NEVER taken donations from federal lobbyists.

Heh (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:10:58 AM EST

I remember when it was supposed to be such a huge story that Obama had been endorsed by Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign manager.

Now we learn that the guy was the head of a lobbying firm that Obama had dealt with for years. Just kinda makes me roll my eyes. I'm so tired of the Kos types who believe that every Clinton endorsement is bought and paid for, while every Obama endorsement signifies someone who genuinely believes in his message of hope and change.

Do we know for sure (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST

that it's the same David Wilhelm? It seems logical, but since he was Clinton's campaign manager and a high profile Obama endorser I'm surprised that wouldn't be mentioned in the article.


: its the same (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM EST

David Wilhelm

when you say we have a chance (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by sancho on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM EST

to elect an historic candidate, you are referring to either barack or hillary, right?

heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:57:13 AM EST

Hospital board..... Hmmmmm

Didn't his wife get a huge raise.... ???

Apples and oranges (none / 0) (#42)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM EST

This board is part of state government and does things like hand out contracts for hospital construction.

I believe Michelle Obama was on the board of a specific hospital in Chicago. Totally different thing.


Doesn't she have some weird job title? (none / 0) (#47)
by ineedalife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM EST

I don't know how she fits into the Univ of Chicago pay scale, but I think she makes more than any employee at our University Hospital including the Dean of the Medical School. Giving a US Senator's wife a 200K/yr raise right after he gets elected is just a coincidence, right? I am sure she took on 200K worth of added responsibilities too, hmm?


: Well (none / 0) (#50)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:15 AM EST

whether or not there's some perfectly innocuous explanation, that sort of thing doesn't really shock me. Unless there's a quid pro quo, which would obviously be a problem, people are always trying to shine up their elected officials.

there's an open thread for those of you (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:25 AM EST

who want to discuss something other than the Rezko trial. Obama's land deal isn't part of it, either is the four state pledge.

too, too funny! (1.00 / 0) (#27)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:40:35 AM EST

jeralyn has consistently maintained (as has BTD, for that matter) that she believes the rezko case is a hollow shell, with respect to sen. obama. for someone to come on here, who clearly is quite clueless, and assert otherwise just demands public ridicule. were i the nasty sort, i'd say you people are brainless idiots. but i'm not, so i won't.

something struck me as curious:

Lawyers for Rezko said the e-mail did not suggest a connection between Obama and the candidates pushed by Wilhelm for the hospital panel.

if that's the case, why bring it up to begin with? must be one o' them tricky defense lawyer moves.

people are paying attention, in the orwellian world of the republican party/right-wing smear machines anyway. should sen. obama be the dem. nominee, we'll be hearing/seeing all sorts of nifty, unsupported hints and allegations, with respect to sen. obama and his connection to mr. rezko.

you betcha!

It's possible (none / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:47:28 AM EST

that they clarified that in response to press queries, rather than as part of the trial itself. It would be kinda weird, as you suggest, for the lawyers to suddenly state mid-trial that "by the way, this has nothing to do with Sen. Obama."


Yes Too Funny (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST

jeralyn has consistently maintained (as has BTD, for that matter) that she believes the rezko case is a hollow shell, with respect to sen. obama. for someone to come on here, who clearly is quite clueless, and assert otherwise just demands public ridicule.

For such a hollow shell in respect to Obama, it is interesting that in this post his name was mentioned 10 in connection to the Rezko trial.

At the very least I would call that smoke signals. It is clear that many here have already convicted Obama for hypocrisy at the least and corruption at the most, while at the same time maintaining Sainthood for HRC.

So, you may not like the comments from the Obama supporter who you point to, but s/he is hardly clueless and hardly deserves public ridicule.


au contraire'! (none / 0) (#55)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:51 AM EST

ok, i'll repeat this, for those of you still on the kool-aid: obama and rezko have been buds for many years; obama and rezko have a personal and apparently professional relationship; obama and rezko have engaged in financial transactions together.

this in no way suggests that sen. obama is guilty of anything worse than maybe poor judgment in picking his friends. however, it explains why, with respect to discussions of the rezko trial, where sen. obama's name has already come up as part of testimony and evidence, jeralyn's post might, possibly, maybe just mention his name more than once. ya think?

and yes, for someone who's clearly a fool to come on this site and post idiotic, baseless comments is an insult to everyone else here. she deserves every bit of ridicule thrown at her.

i can be nasty, but nasty won't fix stupid.

come back with a logical, fact based, rational argument and i will happily treat that with the respect it's due.


Dude (1.00 / 1) (#56)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:56 AM EST

I voted for HRC and have been off kool aid for some time now, but thanks for your concern.

The fact that you think TL is impartial, and that the Rezko/Obama reporting is unrelated to the HRC fanclub that TL has recently become, suggests that you are the one mainlining the kool aid.


squeaky, (none / 0) (#64)
by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:36:11 PM EST

learn to read.

jeralyn only mentioned sen. obama's name in the post twice: once in the link, and once again in her comments at the bottom. the rest of the mentions are in the article itself. are you suggesting jeralyn wrote the article using a pseudonym? or are you suggesting that she should have edited the article, to soothe the concerns of the functionally illiterate?

while you're at it, learn to count.


: Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#65)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST

There is a post. In the post about Rezko, Obama's name is mentioned 10 times. That is what we see. This is TL's blog. The text from the article did not magically appear. It is in a context.
It does not matter if TL did not mention Obama's name once herself. The effect is the same.
It is obviously true that kool aid can cause a certain type of blindness.
You are not alone.

I don't think that anybody is paying attention (none / 0) (#2)
by maritza on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:01:13 AM EST

to this trial except for anti-Obama websites. Even the NYT article is below the fold.

Unless there is specifically something in the trial that specifically points to Obama doing something illegal, this trial is pretty much under the radar.

So there was an email noting that Obama was on a board. So what. Unless Obama did something illegal on that board than who cares.

People are focused right now Spitzer and his prostitution ring as well as on the Obama and Hillary horse race itself and the back and forth of that.

Thanks.... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:36:01 AM EST

for telling us what is and what is not that should be paid attention to. Thanks for telling us about what "people" are focused on. So, consider us who are interested to not be "people" and just feel not read or comment.

Thanks again for deciding for me what I should be interested in based on the MSM and shrillosphere postings.

By the way, thanks Jarelyn.


: Stellaaa, you probably already (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST

saw this, but Dekalb County newspaper, linked at Huff Post, says the state hospital board in question was about to sunset and Obama, as IL state senator, was working to make sure that it did not sunset.

Of course people are paying attention (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by felizarte on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:26:56 AM EST

Your comment on this is in direct contradiction of your statement: certainly you are paying attention. I think that Obama supporters should breathe a sigh a relief that the Spitzer issue is the headline at the moment and pushes the Rezko trial below the fold. But the Rezko trial will be going on for some time and it will have its own full treatment from the media.


It's clear that. . . (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:05:12 AM EST

First off, no wrongdoing by Senator Obama is suggested by the charges against Rezko and secondly that you're right -- no one is really paying attention.

However, the Rezko case has striking similarities to the Whitewater case in which there was no wrongdoing by Bill Clinton and which people also paid no attention to during the 1992 election. After the election, however, Whitewater was the wedge that the Republicans used to launch perpetual investigations of the Clinton White House.

Like others here I've noted that Obama seems to be re-running Bill Clinton's 1992 election campaign in terms of his post-partisan DLC-like "third way" politics. I hope the Rezko case doesn't also track the experiences of 1992.


And the Obama trial continues (none / 0) (#26)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:30:02 AM EST

Obama's name was mentioned several times today.

Nothing else happened in the case.

I didn't read that in Jeralyn's post. (none / 0) (#28)
by Boston Boomer on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:40:46 AM EST

Where does she say that Obama is corrupt? I think that is uncalled for.

expanded the potential Dem electorate (none / 0) (#31)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM EST

this morning I saw Patrick Murphy on MSNBC proudly proclaiming that his wife was a BIG supporter of George Bush and had voted for him twice and now she was excitedly supporting Obama.
I hear this all the time. the question, it seems to me, is are these people on OUR side or just on Obamas side.
it seems a reasonable question.
it also seems unlikely to me someone who "voted for George Bush twice" is going to vote for down ticket democrats.

so... (none / 0) (#38)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM EST

are you asserting that Talk Left, the politics of crime, would not otherwise be covering a trial involving politicians and crime?

To be honest (none / 0) (#44)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST

while I certainly don't agree with the combative tone of these posts, flyerhawk has a point that it's weird to report on the trial as if the only thing that happened was a tangential mention of Obama's name. This is, after all, a major corruption case that could be the first step in a George Ryan-type scandal that brings down serious political players. Here's the Trib's lead paragraph from Jeralyn's link:

Workers in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's patronage office were told to drop everything when Antoin "Tony" Rezko floated an applicant for a state appointment, and Rezko's recommendations were fast-tracked through the bureaucracy, witnesses at his fraud trial testified Monday.

While it's obviously relevant to keep tabs on Obama's connections to the trial, to the extent they exist, there's stuff going on in that courtroom that's a lot juicier.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#51)
by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST

Ryan and Blagojevich's involvement are much more relevant and interesting story lines.
Those are pretty big deals. Yet they don't even merit a mention except as it pertains to Obama.
The story should be covered. And Obama's involvement should be covered as far as it goes.
But these threads generally are the same thing. Brief discussion of the cases followed up by the Obama related material followed up by non-stop insinuations of wrongdoing, corruption, crime, etc by Obama without a shred of proof. Case in point is downthread where there is a long post about the Obama land deal which has nothing to do with the trial.

Logic (none / 0) (#40)
by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST

Ahh, you mean it's relative to time? Ok...so Wolfson changed his mind.

Thin Gruel (none / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:55 AM EST

Jeralyn is hardly asserting that Rezko is corrupt. Many of the commenters here are though, but what else would you expect from cultist. BHO cultists also spread false innuendo and are also wearing out the fainting couch.

One thing that you are missing, and I am also a huge fan of TL, is that Jeralyn can assert her bias as she sees fit, because this is her blog. It is not an impartial site and never has been.

Still, imo, it is waaay more civil and open than the other impartial sites out there.

Squeaky, if you change... (none / 0) (#60)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST

.. "many" to "some" in your second sentence, I would agree with you.


: Done (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM EST

I agree, it was an exaggeration. Thanks for pointing it out.

Jeralyn is hardly asserting that Rezko is corrupt. [Some, but not] many, of the commenters here are though, but what else would you expect from cultists.

Heh (none / 0) (#49)
by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:44:07 AM EST

It has been woefully undercovered in the blogosphere, for reasons that should be obvious, but the reporting has never been refuted or even denied to the best of my knowledge. "Five individuals connected to five different campaigns."

ps: (none / 0) (#53)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST

how did Mrs Rezko sell you a strip of land that the bank still owned vis-a-vis the mortgage?

: I am positive that the GOP and media will be (none / 0) (#54)
by athyrio on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST

happy to answer all these questions in not so flattering terms as soon as Obama secures the nomination....:-(

Obama MUST release his taxes for all the years (none / 0) (#59)
by DemBillC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:33:57 AM EST

tha he was chummy with Rezco. How do we know just how deep his friendship with Rezco goes. I mean besides slumlord Rezco helping him buy his house.
Obama is a hypocrite being critical of Hillary not releasing her tax returs for this year yet, when he has not released any of his before this year. The press must get off of their asses and demand he release all his returns with scumbag supporters like Rezco in his past.