Posted on 10/10/2008 3:23:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Sun Times today gave a major clue that Barack Obama will indeed go down with Tony Rezko, sooner rather than later. It looks as though Rezko is about to turn on Alexi Giannoulias, the 30-year old State Treasurer of Illinois (who was elected only because Obama backed him).
Here’s where all the clues are…and then we’ll walk you through the local Chicago politics on how today’s hint by the Sun Times has us convinced, for the first time ever, that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could indeed send Barack Obama to jail.
We need to repeat that: we never believed, until now, that Obama would go to jail for anything related to Rezko. Today, this breaking news about what Rezko is singing to the Feds about makes us reconsider all of that.
Barack Obama will serve a prison sentence in the next few years — because knowing Fitzgerald, there is no reason he would be going through all of this if that was not the targeted goal in the long term.
(1) Michael Sneed in her Sun Times column 10/10/08 had the following tidbit:
Sneed hears rumbles political fund-raiser/fixer Tony Rezko, who is now singing sweetly to the feds from his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, has been talking about his “dealings” with a Chicago bank, which has political connections.
(2) We just spoke with someone well-connected in Chicago politics who told us that the bank Sneed is talking about has to be Broadway Bank, which is owned by the politically-connected Giannoulias family. We were told that Sneed’s column confirms rumblings people we know heard independently that Tony Rezko is giving up the Giannoulias family to Patrick Fitzgerald — Rezko and the Giannoulias family are as close and tied together as anyone in Chicago could be. If Rezko is turning on them, then Rezko is going to give up Governor Rod Blagojevich and Obama too.
We don’t want to end up in cement shoes for implying anything here, but if you live in Chicago for any length of time, you hear rumors about Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias family, and insert Tony Soprano references here. Kapeech?
(3) So, Rezko is singing about the Giannoulias family and its longtime “business dealings” in Chicago, which would interest someone like Fitzgerald and the Justice Department, who have had a long ambition to crack Soprano-style business dealings in Chicago (the city known for Al Capone hasn’t changed much, really). The next plate to drop in this will be Fitzgerald then leaning on the Giannoulias family to give up someone bigger than them, who Fitzgerald once discussed in terms of hoping “he has the morals to do the right thing”, to paraphrase. We now believe that person Fitz was talking about is Barack Obama.
(4) The Giannoulias family was involved with Obama as far back as his first state senate campaign in 1996. It has been long rumored here in Chicago that Obama obtained a sweetheart deal on his first town home here in Chicago — which he could not have afforded otherwise — and guess who the financing came from for that house? We’ve been told it was Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias bank. Now, this sets up a scenario where the Giannoulias family helps Obama with his campaign finances and gets him deeper in their pocket with his sweetheart mortgage deal (for the first home he owned that he could not afford) – all in exchange for quid pro quo to be determined later.
(5) One favor political Chicago claims Obama did for the Giannoulias family was in 2006 when, out of the blue, 29 year old Alexi Giannoulias, with no experience, and without ever having voted before, decides to run for State Treasurer of Illinois. Also out of the blue, Barack Obama endorses Alexi Giannoulias for State Treasurer. This was a SHOCK to everyone in Chicago — and Giannoulias would have never become State Treasurer without Obama’s help. In political circles here, it has always been believed that this endorsement was bought years ago with that sweetheart mortgage deal Broadway Bank arranged for Obama to buy his town house.
(6) So, the Tony Rezko sweetheart deal was not the first magic home loan Obama ever received to buy a house he could not afford.
There’s more to this that looks like it will break soon. We were STUNNED when we read Sneed’s column because we never in a million years believed Fitz would actually be able to take down Obama.
We do not believe this will come out before the election, however, but we do believe Fitzgerald will continue his prosecution to the highest level, because that is what he does. Jean Valjean got off easy, compared to what it’s like to be in the crosshairs of perhaps the greatest prosecutor this nation has had in a generation. Patrick Fitzgerald is a force of nature.
Sneed’s clue can only mean Broadway Bank…we’ve now heard this from several people in Chicago. And Broadway Bank can only mean Giannoulias. And Giannoulias leads to Obama through that town house home loan and the quid pro quo political endorsement several years later. And that home loan ties back to Rezko, in that it was the first of two shady home buys Obama made with quid pro quos attached to them.
Just thinking that last paragraph out, Obama’s defense in the Rezko business was that he never did anything for Rezko so there was no quid pro quo. What the Giannoulias and Broadway Bank stuff proves is that Obama sits in people’s pockets for a while before the favor is given. He bought that town house sometime between 1997-2000 or so, since he lived there for a few years before trading up to the Obama Mansion with Rezko’s help in 2005, after he was in the United States Senate. And it looks like the payback was not given to the Giannoulias family until 2006, with Obama’s endorsement of Alexi Giannoulias for State Treasurer.
This all stems from Sneed’s clue in today’s Sun Times. She says to stay tuned for more, so please do that.
Who is HillBuzz?
Yeah, that's why President Nixon served two full terms...wait, no he didn't.
Fitzgerald could refuse to step down and also charge Obama with obstruction of justice. There would be a march on Washington to rival the “Million Man March” by Promise Keepers many years ago; the outraghe would be so big. It would force the Democrats to impeach Obama.
Hillary Supporters for McCain, aka PUMAs.
Here’s several millions (minimum) of PUMAs, etc..
Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain: http://www.hcsfjm.com
Party Unity My A$$ PAC/People United Means Action PAC: http://blog.pumapac.org
Democrats Against Obama/Nobama ever! http://democrats-against-obama.org
Just Say No Deal:
http://justsaynodeal.com
Take a look around these sites for a half hour or 45 minutes....(there are hundreds more linked to these, just look for links)
Mr. Fitzgerald is (at least nominally) a Republican.
We do not believe this will come out before the election, however, but we do believe Fitzgerald will continue his prosecution to the highest level, because that is what he does. Jean Valjean got off easy, compared to what it’s like to be in the crosshairs of perhaps the greatest prosecutor this nation has had in a generation. Patrick Fitzgerald is a force of nature.
Fitz would have a tough time, if possible at all, indicting a sitting president (should Obambi win the election).
If Obambi could be named as a co-conspirator before Election Day, or otherwise as a subject of interest (or similiar), it might be enough to raise questions in sheeple's minds.
But if he wins, the only way to get him out of office is to impeach him, convict him and remove him.
Fitz better get going on this if he thinks he really has the goods on Obambi.
I'll post some source material in a separate post.
Fitzgerald will be out of office as soon as Obama is in.
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
October 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.
The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (”OLC”) prepared a comprehensive memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not, whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office. See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973) (”OLC Memo”).
The OLC memorandum concluded that all federal civil officers except the President are subject to indictment and criminal prosecution while still in office; the President is uniquely immune from such process. Second, the Department addressed the question later that same year in connection with the grand jury investigation of then-Vice President Spiro Agnew.
In response to a motion by the Vice President to enjoin grand jury proceedings against him, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed a brief arguing that, consistent with the Constitution, the Vice President could be subject to indictment and criminal prosecution. See Memorandum for the United States Concerning the Vice President’s Claim of Constitutional Immunity (filed Oct. 5, 1973), In re Proceedings of the Grand Jury Impaneled December 5, 1972: Application of Spiro T. Agnew, Vice President of the United States (D. Md. 1973) (No. 73-965) (”SG Brief”).
In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.
In this memorandum, we conclude that the determinations made by the Department in 1973, both in the OLC memorandum and in the Solicitor General’s brief, remain sound and that subsequent developments in the law validate both the analytical framework applied and the conclusions reached at that time.
In Part I, we describe in some detail the Department’s 1973 analysis and conclusions. In Part II, we examine more recent Supreme Court case law and conclude that it comports with the Department’s 1973 conclusions.2
. . . This is an excerpt from the following link. (Note the date of this memo.)
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
...for refusing to belly flop into a giant pit of mud.
So many dots to connect - so little time.
Isn’t Patrick Fitzgerald a declared Independant? He was nominated by Republican former senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation). He doesn’t strike me political...even though his office’s cases have incl. pretty high profile republicans (Gov. Ryan was a crook!). He strikes me like the old sheriff type who rounds up the bad guys and remains neutral.
Is a president-elect considered to be a “sitting” president? I wouldn’t think so, as he/she hasn’t been sworn in yet? That gives Mr. Fitzgerald til late January of 2009, doesn’t it?
Slightly O/T, this is exactly what is going to happen when the Rats try to blame this financial mess on Wall Street and “corporate greed.”
Those guys are not going to take it. Before too long, they are going to start singing like tweety birds who never notice the sun went down.
Just today I heard on Rush one of them spilling on Dodd, who sanctimoniously came out and bashed the CEOS, etc. Former CEO of Countrywide said something like “Of course Dodd knew he was getting a sweetheart deal on his mortgage (despite his denials). That was the POINT of giving him a sweetheart deal-—he won’t do favors for Countrywide if he ‘didn’t know’ Countrywide had lined his pockets.”
The Rats can’t push this off on Republicans and they can’t push it off on CEOs without eventually getting the biggest blowback they’ve ever seen. These guys have the goods on the RATS. So, I hope, they are cornered this time-—so long as WE keep up the pressure to fix blame for this debacle.
“Just conjecture & rumors for now, but who knows?”
Quite so. Doesn’t sound like anything truly “illegal” (but there are obviously a lot of missing details) UNTIL we find out if there ever was a quid pro quo.....and of course, at that point, an iron-bar linkage would have to be made and we know that doesn’t happen much in Dem-dominated poitical circles. So...I’m not holding my breath.
Hell the more he’s called a Messiah...the more he’s associated with Wright and Ayers...etc... the more he rises in the polls.....reminds me of 92...teflon this guy is...
A real indictment from Fitzgerald would be great...nothing sticks harder than a real indictment when the MSM won’t do their job.
This is like The Godfather and the Kennedys all at once.
The only possible way this could happen is if the Clintons are behind it...
There’s still some hope, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Mark
Yep. But that’s still not a lot of time as these things go.
And once Obambi is elected, if that happens, the political cost of going forward gets a lot larger.
And once Obambi is elected, if that happens, the political cost of going forward gets a lot larger
Can you say CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES? Add in the FACT that Obama will NOT provide a valid birth certificate, then you have the making of a block buster made for home movie:
CRISES ON ELECTION DAY
I’ve heard people say things about not accepting an invalid president, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Not watch it on TV?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.