Obama admitted to the Chicago Tribune in March of this year to taking even more from Rezko than the Sun-Times had estimated. It would seem my counterpart is not willing to admit to as much involving Rezko as even Obama himself:
Trying to put his past with Antoin “Tony” Rezko behind him, presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday said he never thought the now indicted Chicago businessman would try to take advantage of him because his old friend had never asked for a political favor.
But in a 90-minute interview with Tribune reporters and editors, Obama disclosed that Rezko had raised more for Obama’s earlier political campaigns than previously known, gathering as much as $250,000 for the first three offices he sought.
Obama also elaborated on previous statements about his private real estate transactions with Rezko, saying they were not simply mistakes of judgment because Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. “The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems. The mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics.”
……….
Rezko also was on the finance committee for Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate run. “My best assessment is that he raised $160,000 during my U.S. Senate primary,” he said, adding that those funds had been given to charity. [Why did he donate those funds to charity, but not the other $90,000?]
……….
The senator said that at the time, in early 2005, he was aware of the growing controversies surrounding Rezko’s dealings with state and city government. In March 2005, for example, city officials alleged that a minority contractor at O’Hare International Airport acted as a front for a Rezko firm. “I started reading the reports that were surfacing,” Obama said. Rezko “gave me assurances that this wasn’t a problem.” And, Obama added, “at that time, the news around Rezko’s problems had not elevated to the levels that they did later.”
Scary to think that Obama might believe the assurances of our nation’s enemies just as readily as those of his long-time friend and contributor. Given how surprised he’s supposedly been to hear the truth of what his friends and mentors are doing (and his utter lack of foreign policy experience), why would anyone assume otherwise?
