« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »

June 27, 2008

Guns, Death and Democrats

As Published On
The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com

 

Link to Print Version - http://jaygaskill.com/Guns.htm

 

Friday…

 

Guns, Death and Democrats

 

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court (in District of Columbia vs. Heller) settled a long standing controversy about gun ownership and a possession.  Is the vaunted Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” a derivative one, linked to the “well regulated militias” language of that amendment, or is it an individual one?  The answer is now settled - once again by a 5 t o4 ruling.

 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

 

Registration and licensing requirements were not invalidated, per se, but they can’t be used to prohibit the home possession of firearms – especially pistols, as Justice Scalia reminds us, because they are particularly useful for self defense.

 

The court (per Scalia – well known for his lucid writing) also said:

 

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

 

Political Implications

 

Both presidential candidates were quick to support the ruling.  Senator Obama in his typically measured response, appeared to be reassuring democrats that (a) he is a reasonable guy and (b) the ruling isn’t that bad after all.

 

Actually, the decision is a good one for democrats if they are astute enough to absorb the lesson.  Self defense in America’s crime plagued inner cities is a big deal.  A number of the left’s putatively core constituencies – think gays and lesbians, frail elders and young professional women – are closet gun rights supporters because they, above all, don’t enjoy being undefended targets. 

 

Political turnout is almost always driven by constituencies frightened by the risk that a candidate or party is going to “take something away”.  The surest path to democratic defeat is to “stir up the gun nuts” who turn out to vote as a block at every threat – real or perceived – to the sacred right to gun ownership.  Here’s the dirty little secret: They aren’t nuts.  Self defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment.  If the country arrives at a judicially driven consensus (Think the Brown vs. Board of Education analogy here) that private gun ownership is a right not lightly to be infringed, then the primary beneficiary will be the Democratic Party, the left wing of which always seems to need and benefit from adult supervision.

 

A similar issue is the death penalty, one in which too many liberal democrats, too often gravely misunderstand.  Yesterday, I posted a revised version of “Death, Deterrence and Reform” which should be studied (I modestly assert) by every liberal democrat or moderate republican who thinks he or she actually understands the death penalty issue.  Go to http://jaygaskill.com/DeathDeterrenceReform.htm .

 

And yes, the larger game remains unsettled.  Which American political party will – over the next two elections cycles – be best able to capture the populist center?  On that larger question, the jury is still out…

 

JBG

June 26, 2008

More of Us Than Them

As Published On
The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com

Crime and Punishment 101– a Series

Print Version Link: http://jaygaskill.com/CrimeAndPunishment.htm 

Today (6-26-08) in the NYT, I note an interesting story out of Brooklyn (by Michael Wilson) where neighborhood bloggers helped take down a pestilent crack house. [Check out http://bayridgetalk.com/ -- it’s  a great example of neighborhood interaction.]

 

The neighborhood web site carried frequent reports about the problem, like “Fighting and drug deals going down in the driveway of this house.”

 

That was in 2006.

 

Then this later report -- “There have been two deaths in a one-block radius up here. One was definitely an overdose and the other is suspect, but the toxicology is still pending (to my knowledge). If the tox comes back positive, then that could indicate that some bad stuff has hit the streets.”

 

Eventually the neighbors – armed with the knowledge that they weren’t alone, went in person the 68th Precinct Station and vented.  As one of the neighborhood leaders put it “At the end of the day, it was about putting aside anonymity, putting aside the HTML and physically showing up.”

 

After the successful raid and arrests, several miscreants were in custody and the neighborhood had improved overnight.  “Everybody on this block is happy they’re gone. I’d wake up in the morning, I’d hear the drug addicts arguing about how their sneakers are gone, all this nonsense. They’d take each other’s clothes, their money.”

 

As one blogger put it -- “People don’t like to fight alone. There’s strength in numbers. There’s more of us than them.”

 

Francis Fukuyama noted in his book, The Great Disruption, that crime waves are associated with the loss of social capital.  He described an example from old New York where a young girl wandered away from her parents in a dense busy urban neighborhood. Several eyes were on her immediately, a shopkeeper, a delivery guy, and so on. Everyone in that earlier urban neighborhood was engaged, and knew almost everyone else.  The girl was in safe hands. That is social capital. 

 

The Brooklyn story represents the restoration a little social capital using the web.  But make no mistake they had to “put aside the HTML” and get into the real world where people talk to people. 

 

Sever are several other hidden factors operating here.  The Giuliani revolution is alive and well.  One of its underreported effects was to reinforce the confidence of police and neighbors alike – “We’re going to turn this around” was followed by results.  When a critical mass of good people wake up and realize that "There’s more of us than them,” good things begin to happen.

 

JBG
 

 

June 12, 2008

Today's Guantanamo Decision

As Published On
The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com

 

Link to the Print Version -- http://jaygaskill.com/TheGuantanamoDecision.htm

 

JUNE 12, 2008

 

ABOUT THAT GUANTANAMO DECISION

 

 

BBC: 

 

“Foreign suspects held in Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

 

“In a major legal setback for the Bush administration, the court overturned by five to four a ruling upholding a 2006 law which removed such rights.

 

‘It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees. Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al Qaeda and the Taleban.”

 

Justice Scalia:

 

[T]oday’s opinion … will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

 

[][][]

 

Prior to today, the received wisdom was that those non-U .S. citizens who do not reside in the U. S. and do not have permanent resident status run afoul of US forces outside US territory at their peril: They simply do not have access to the American judicial system to resolve their issues with our government.

 

In a five to four decision – Justice Kennedy voting with the majority – the U.S. Supreme Court has changed the rules.

 

The linchpin of the decision was to undo the denial of writ of habeas corpus to foreign terror combatants at the U. S. Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. 

 

No one seriously disputes that Guantanamo is outside the United States. 

 

Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary judicial order or writ that commands the executive to bring the body of a prisoner before the court for the purpose of reviewing the legality of his or her imprisonment.

 

Background

 

Here is all that the actual text of the constitution says on the subject:

 

[][][]

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

‘ARTICLE I.

‘Section 9.
‘The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
[][][]
On the face of it (and based on the court’s earlier precedents), so called enemy combatants, non-citizens, persona not having the benefit of permanent resident status,  who are being held during time of war by US military forces are not entitled to the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus.
Does the Bill of rights alter their status? Again, not on the face of it:
[][][]

“AMENDMENT FIVE

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“AMENDMENT SIX

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

“AMENDMENT XIV

“Section 1.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[][][]

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Regan appointee, has become the high court’s “swing vote” - the Supreme Court is otherwise evenly divided between four left of center justices (Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer) and five right of center justices (Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts).     

 

In the majority opinion, Kennedy disputed that a period of “public danger” should be used to suspend access to the writ, given the protracted nature of the terrorist threat. 

 

Here is the core of his majority opinion:

 

[][][]

 

“Petitioners identify what they see as myriad deficiencies in the CSRT’s [referring to the authorized military hearing procedures afforded the Guantanamo prisoners] the most relevant being the constraints upon the detainee’s ability to rebut the factual basis for the Government's assertion that he is an enemy combatant. At the CSRT stage the detainee has limited means to find or present evidence to challenge the Government's case, does not have the assistance of counsel, and may not be aware of the most critical allegations that the Government relied upon to order his detention. His opportunity to confront witnesses is likely to be more theoretical than real, given that there are no limits on the admission of hearsay. The Court therefore agrees with petitioners that there is considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact. And given that the consequence of error may be detention for the duration of hostilities that may last a generation or more, the risk is too significant to ignore. Accordingly, for the habeas writ, or its substitute, to function as an effective and meaningful remedy in this context, the court conducting the collateral proceeding must have some ability to correct any errors, to assess the sufficiency of the Government's evidence, and to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding.”

 

[][][]

 

Critics  of the decision – including trenchant dissents from Justices Roberts and Scalia -  point out that the majority have authorized an unprecedented judicial intervention in the treatment of foreign terror detainees without indicating just how much American style “due process” will result. 

 

Even majority seemed to recognize the scope of the possible mischief that may follow:

 

[][][]

 

 

“As to the third factor, we recognize, as the Court did in Eisentrager [The court’s earlier precedent denying the extra-territorial use of habeas], that there are costs to holding the Suspension Clause applicable in a case of military detention abroad. Habeas corpus proceedings may require expenditure of funds by the Government and may divert the attention of military personnel from other pressing tasks. While we are sensitive to these concerns, we do not find them dispositive.”

[Kennedy in the majority opinion.]

 

…and the majority also recognized the unprecedented nature of its current holding:

 

“It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.”

 

[][][]

 

Justice Roberts’ dissent put it plainly:

 

“Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation. And to what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the people's representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by federal courts at some future date.”

 

…and he added--

 

“How the detainees' claims will be decided now that the DTA (the congressionally authorized replacement of the military tribunals) is gone is anybody's guess. But the habeas process the Court mandates will most likely end up looking a lot like the DTA system it replaces, as the district court judges shaping it will have to reconcile review of the prisoners' detention with the undoubted need to protect the American people from the terrorist threat--precisely the challenge Congress undertook in drafting the DTA. All that today's opinion has done is shift responsibility for those sensitive foreign policy and national security decisions from the elected branches to the Federal Judiciary.”

 

MY COMMENTS

 

It is difficult to miss the irony here.  The Bush Administration is the victim of its own success in shutting down the terrorist threats to Americans living in the Continental U.S.

 

Many in the judicial branch, think - I suspect mistakenly - that the threat has abated; they now feel emboldened to reassert their “traditional” control over the conduct of affairs of state.  From their point of view, the denial to non-citizen “suspects” of the generous procedural protections due “regular Americans” is a temporary aberration, one to be repaired at the first opportunity. 

 

This Supreme Court decision represents a risky – also unnecessary and premature - assertion of judicial power. The whole situation could change in a heartbeat if and when our terrorist enemies get lucky again.  Then the backlash against the “progressives” in judicial branch will be fierce and long lasting. 

 

An earlier Supreme Court tradition would have used more restraint.  Those justices understood the value of prudence, caution and forbearance, especially when invading the province of the other two branches of government. 

 

The authority of the High Court can be weakened via overuse; I would have saved it for something more directly affecting the rights of our own citizens and residents.

 

 

JBG

June 07, 2008

Will Hans Give Up the Body in a Deal?

As Published On
The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com

As updated 6-19-08

Print Version link: http://jaygaskill.com/NinasBody.htm
RUMORS OF A POST CONVICTION DEAL:
WILL HANS GIVE UP THE LOCATION OF NINA’S CORPSE?

 

When I was interviewed by the CBS 48 Hours team during and after the trial, I learned two things from their production staff and other contacts:
(1) That in a sealed plea bargain – rejected at the last minute by Hans, pre-trial - he was to accept a voluntary manslaughter conviction and a low prison term;
(2) That after he was convicted, there were immediate rumors about a possible deal involving the body location in exchange for a reduction in punishment.
So the recent developments, that the rumors have ripened into a story posted by WIRED’s intrepid reporter, David Kravets, were not unexpected. 

About that special Tuesday evening Telecast of ¨CBS 48 Hours¨ Mystery-- 

Streaming video of that program is still available from CBS at the following link, but you now need to navigate from there to the program, title "Betrayal": http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?channel=48HoursOndemand .  

Here is the link to his WIRED story:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/hans-reiser-off.html?cid=117887172#comment-117887172
And an excerpt:

 

Hans Reiser Offers To Lead Cops to Nina's Body
By David Kravets June 06, 2008  
“Hans Reiser…might disclose the location of Nina Reiser's body in exchange for a reduced term, Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff told Threat Level on Friday.
"’There's been some overtures,’ he said. ‘But everything is in its preliminary stage.’"
 

“T. O.” has a gift for understatement. 
 

Here’s the lay of the land as I see it from my remote viewing platform across the estuary:
There are two recurring themes in most felony trials I’ve seen over the years:
(a) Post-conviction buyer’s remorse, in the form - “Damn, I should have listened to my lawyer.”
(b) Evidence of bad advice from others, as in - “Damn, I shouldn’t have listened to [Mom] or [Dad]!”
 

I believe that Hans’ decision to reject a good plea bargain and to testify in his own case were both the product of improvident parental advice.  Of course, now he wants that plea bargain back.  But that boat has left the dock.
 

We are entitled to ask: Why would the prosecution give this defendant anything now?
 

There are a number of factors at play, here. 
 

First: Judge Larry Goodman is in charge.  He can veto any agreement.  He also can make certain arrangements without the DA’s overt support.  As the so called “13th juror”, Judge Goodman has the inherent authority to reduce the conviction from first degree murder to second degree.  A fortiori, he has the ability to work his own deal with the defense, if he chooses.
 

Second: As a public official, the DA is entitled to take into account the interests of the victim’s family and friends who want closure.  A second degree murder would not be giving away the store in any event, since many of us experts were surprised that the jury reached first degree.
 

Third: If the DA can secure a guilty plea from Reiser, that is worth a great deal because it effectively eliminates an appeal and puts the case to rest once and for all.
I would not expect to see a reduction below second degree unless it was accompanied by specific factual findings to support it, a guilty plea, the upper term for that offense and possible one or more additional charges  (think perjury and obstruction of justice).
 

The whole business is tricky to accomplish and the defendant – well, the term squirrelly comes to mind.  So when Tom Orloff cautions that this might not go down, he isn’t exaggerating.  So far I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the defendant himself in on board…
 

Stay tuned.

 JBG

 

June 05, 2008

Hillary's Choices

As Published On
The Out-Lawyer’s Blog: http://www.jaygaskill.com/blog1
And
The Policy Think Site: http://www.jaygaskill.com
All contents, unless otherwise indicated are
Copyright © 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 by Jay B. Gaskill
Permission to publish, distribute or print all or part of this article (except for personal use) is needed. [Permission for use in group discussions is almost always routinely given.]
Please contact Jay B. Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail at law@jaygaskill.com
HILLARY’S GAME
Part Two

 

[“Part One” is copied below from my earlier post - http://jaygaskill.com/HillarysGame.htm .]

 

[][][]
Is it REALLY over for Mrs. Clinton?

 

 

The Print Version of this piece is available at - http://jaygaskill.com/HillarysGamePartTwo.htm

 

 

A HILLARY WATCHER ALERT

 

Pay very close attention to how Senator Clinton parses her predicted concession statement.  Trust me, there will be a loophole.  From the point of view of the Clintons it’s not over as long as two conditions obtain:
 (1) The super-delegates have not actually cast votes (political endorsements, including Hillary’s, are subject to “revision”);
(2)  The prospect of new damaging information about Senator Obama remains alive….

 

Everything that senator Clinton has done or said of late amounts to a bid for time against mounting pressure. 

 

THIS IS WHY

 

[][][]

 

TONY REZKO CONVICTED OF CORRUPTION CHARGES IN CHISAGO FEDERAL COURT

 

Chicago Sun Times

 

[Excerpts are reproduced here for comment purposes, only.  Copyright Chicago Sun Times 2008.]

 

June 5, 2008

 

“[Tony]  Rezko to still faces another federal trial in Chicago that accuses him in a $10 million business-loan fraud, as well as a criminal prosecution in Nevada …If Rezko were to cooperate with authorities in exchange for a lighter prison sentence, he could be a linchpin for prosecutors in several other criminal cases.”

 

 

AP, Fox News, other media report the reaction of the Junior Senator from Illinois:

 

Senator Barak Obama:  “I’m saddened by today’s verdict. This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges....”

 

 

Sure…
The pending question is whether this is the Barak Obama we thought we knew…

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Chicago Sun Times
June 18, 2007

 

BY CHRIS FUSCO AND TIM NOVAK Staff Reporters/cfusco@suntimes.com  tnovak@suntimes.com  [Excerpts are reproduced here for commentary purposes, only.  Copyright Chicago Sun Times 2008.]

 

“… Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged… Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle [ and] also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s. [S]even months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his ‘best estimate’ was that Rezko raised ‘between $50,000 and $60,000’ during Obama's political career.

 

“Tony Rezko has long been a key backer of Sen. Barack Obama.”

 

MY COMMENT

 

Senator and Mrs. Obama are living in a home acquired with the generous help of Mr. Rezko.  The value of Mr. Rezko’s assistance has been valued in the high six figures.  So far, the Senator has not been required to explain this assistance and, inter alia, why this was not a reportable contribution. Reportedly, Obama was serving in the U. S. Senate at the time….

 

 

[][][]

 

MORE BACKGROUND…
HILLARY’S GAME
Part One
Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, as do most “neutral” observers, that it is virtually impossible for Senator Clinton to develop an overall lead over Senator Obama in the remaining primaries (she is likely to win them). 

 

What could possibly motivate her to stay in the race now?

 

Yes, the Clinton’s are fighters, and yes, a great deal of mutual antipathy has developed between the two camps.  But that’s not the real story – or at least the whole story. 

 

Remember two key words here: “Tony Rezko” and “2012”.

 

The Democratic Party has begun to fracture just as victory is within its grasp.  The most serious split is not – as many have argued – between the “identity politics” groups (here feminists vs. black Americans).  The split is between the party’s “pink” activists (think anti-military “Code Pink” here) and its “true blue” plurality (think of the socially moderate, centrist patriots here).  Hillary has appeared on the stage as a sort of neo-Scoop Jackson democrat -- leaving aside the obvious differences, she has staked out a much more robust national security profile than the Illinois Senator has and one at odds with the party’s internationalist left.

 

I believe that Hillary and her key advisors are thinking along two lines:
(1) Obama is on a pedestal so high that a single, unanticipated scandal could lead to a precipitate fall.  It would be foolish in the extreme if Hillary had prematurely taken herself out of the game.  The name of that potential scandal is Tony Rezko.  [More on that in a minute.]
(2) Hillary and a number of Democratic Party insiders fear that Obama might lose so badly that congressional and senatorial seats will be lost – something like the McGovern debacle is not out of the question.  So, in this scenario, Hillary is positioning herself for an “I told you so” rerun in 1012, one in which a John McCain becomes a single term president.  An Obama victory in 2008 is not in Hillary’s interests.

 

For these reasons I would expect Senator Clinton to run this contest all the way to Denver.

 

Final arguments in a Chicago federal court (that of U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve) criminal trial will be delivered this Monday.  The defendant, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a politically connected businessman, an influence-guy with his hands in Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board and the state’s Teachers Retirement System Board, is accused of accepting a 3.5 million dollar payoff from an Iraqi born billionaire, arranging kickbacks from people and businesses dealing with the aforementioned boards and other fraud. 

 

Any reasonably astute politician worth his or her political salt knew or should have known that close association with Mr. Rezko was likely to be toxic.  Barak should have known better.  If the Rev. Wright was Obama’s spiritual mentor, then it seems that Mr. Rezko was the young Obama’s influence and get-ahead mentor.

 

Although Barak’s name has only indirectly been mentioned in the trial, other reports have surfaced in the Chicago area news media about Obama’s new house.  It seems that, as a newly elected US Senator, kindly Mr. Rezko gave the Obamas significant and thinly disguised “help” in that purchase.  By several accounts the monetary value of that kindly assistance exceeded several hundred thousand dollars.  If true, this would be a clear “no, no” for a sitting U. S. Senator.

 

I am dead certain that the Clintons have access sources close to the Rezko prosecution.  If I were her, I’d not drop out of the presidential sweepstakes any time soon.  The Clinton camp is waiting to see if Tony is convicted and whether he sings….

 

JBG

 

 

 

 

 

[Excerpts are reproduced here for comment purposes, only.Copyright Chicago Sun Times 2008.]“[Tony] Rezko to still faces another federal trial in Chicago that accuses him in a $10 million business-loan fraud, as well as a criminal prosecution in Nevada …If Rezko were to cooperate with authorities in exchange for a lighter prison sentence, he could be a linchpin for prosecutors in several other criminal cases.” “I’m saddened by today’s verdict. , but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges....”June 18, 2007BY CHRIS FUSCO AND TIM NOVAK Staff [Excerpts are reproduced here for commentary purposes, only.Copyright Chicago Sun Times 2008.]“… Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged… Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle [ and] also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s. [S]even months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his ‘best estimate’ was that Rezko raised ‘between $50,000 and $60,000’ during Obama's political career.

Hosting by Yahoo!