Eric Zorn; Let's clarify the Obama deal with Rezko -- a handy cheat sheet

[BenBurch]

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/06/reality-check-t.html

John McCain didn't borrow money from a guy going to jail to build his house....Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) discussing Barack Obama on Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopoulous."

Perhaps Graham was simply confused. After all, there are many fine points to remember in the story of the land deal involving Obama and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and off-the-cuff summaries can blur the truth.

Obama didn't borrow even a dime from Rezko to buy -- not build -- a house three years ago.

But now that Rezko is, in fact, "going to jail" -- he's actually already serving prison time after his conviction last week on federal corruption charges -- and Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, it's time for a handy cheat sheet for pols and and pundits tempted to incorporate this tale into their campaign narratives.


<SNIP>

Some great debunking by Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn.

[Brainster]

I particularly like this part:

5. The Obamas did not get a special discount from the Rezkos when they later purchased a one-sixth strip of the vacant lot to enlarge their yard.

The price the Obamas paid, $104,500, was a neat one-sixth of the price of the lot and more than double the value Obama said his appraiser put on the strip.

It's interesting that Rezko, reportedly an experienced real estate investor, paid over twice the value per square foot that Obama's appraiser put on the lot.

[NotJesus]

It's interesting that Rezko, reportedly an experienced real estate investor, paid over twice the value per square foot that Obama's appraiser put on the lot.

He didn't. Obama's the one who paid.

[corplinx]

Here is the Rezko sheet in summary form and what I've been saying a long time:
nothing to see here

[Brainster]

He didn't. Obama's the one who paid.

Read closely. Obama paid exactly the same amount (per square foot) that Rezko paid. He bought one-sixth of the land that Rezko bought, and he paid one-sixth of the price that Rezko paid.

But that was over twice what Obama's appraiser thought the land was worth. Why would Obama pay twice what the land was worth? Because that's what Rezko paid for it. But why did Rezko pay twice what the land was worth?

Let's see Obama got about a $300,000 discount from the asking price for the house, and Rezko paid about $300,000 more than the vacant land was worth. Can't imagine how anybody would find that suspicious.

:D

[NotJesus]

Read closely. Obama paid exactly the same amount (per square foot) that Rezko paid. He bought one-sixth of the land that Rezko bought, and he paid one-sixth of the price that Rezko paid.

But that was over twice what Obama's appraiser thought the land was worth. Why would Obama pay twice what the land was worth? Because that's what Rezko paid for it. But why did Rezko pay twice what the land was worth?

Let's see Obama got about a $300,000 discount from the asking price for the house, and Rezko paid about $300,000 more than the vacant land was worth. Can't imagine how anybody would find that suspicious.

:D


Obama's appraiser appraised the strip that Obama bought, not the lot as a whole.

[BenBurch]

Here is the Rezko sheet in summary form and what I've been saying a long time:
nothing to see here

yep.

[corplinx]

Let's see Obama got about a $300,000 discount from the asking price for the house, and Rezko paid about $300,000 more than the vacant land was worth. Can't imagine how anybody would find that suspicious.

:D

Why? Rezko tried to get in good with all the political bigwigs in the area. If someone had evidence that Rezko's cuddling up ever got him special treatment or favors it would have come out already.

[BenBurch]

Obama's appraiser appraised the strip that Obama bought, not the lot as a whole.

Yes. Obama "overpaid." Not exactly a bribe here... Sounds like Rezko knew they wanted the land and decided to make a few dollars on it.

Mind you, if you really want something and its unique, as the land next to our house is, spending more than an appraisal is not out-of-line.

[Brainster]

Yes. Obama "overpaid." Not exactly a bribe here... Sounds like Rezko knew they wanted the land and decided to make a few dollars on it.

Rezko did not make a few dollars on the sale to Obama. He sold Obama 1/6th of the land for exactly 1/6th the price that he bought it for. Clearly the deal was "I'll pay you what you paid for it." That's not the suspicious part. It's that Rezko appears to have paid more than it was worth. And typically smaller parcels are more expensive per square foot than larger parcels; this is why people subdivide.

Mind you, if you really want something and its unique, as the land next to our house is, spending more than an appraisal is not out-of-line.

Twice the appraisal? That's a pretty significant difference, one that would definitely send up big red flags if the deal had been financed (but it probably wasn't). I know that in commercial appraisals if two appraisers come up with a value difference of 10% it's considered worth investigating by the Appraisal Institute.

There is little evidence of a "quo". But there's one obvious "quid" as anybody who works in the real estate biz (as I do) can tell.

[Minadin]

I don't find it all that odd to offer more than something's apparent value, if it's something you really want, especially if you're in the position to make that sort of an offer.

To me, this is a case of, 'Hey, you're not using that, mind if I take (part of) it off your hands before you get rid of it altogether? I'll pay what you paid dollar for dollar even though this appraisal says it's not worth anywhere near that'.

Conversely, it could be that, since this Rezko guy seems to be a bit of a scumbag, that the asking price went up considerably when he found out that Obama wanted it, despite the appraisal. Like Ben said, it's not like you can buy a similarly sized strip of land half a block down the street for what Obama wanted to do with it.

But, I prefer the first scenario as I would like to assume the best possible of everyone involved without more information.

[Dr Adequate]

Brainster, Brainster ... what would you be saying right now if Obama had bought the land for half what Rezko paid for it?

Would that not have had a genuine appearance of impropriety? Like a property developer effectively giving a local politician $52,250 worth of property?

[BenBurch]

Why? Rezko tried to get in good with all the political bigwigs in the area. If someone had evidence that Rezko's cuddling up ever got him special treatment or favors it would have come out already.

Yep! Fundrace shows he ALSO gave money to Bush in '04. It would appear he played both sides of the fence.

[Brainster]

Brainster, Brainster ... what would you be saying right now if Obama had bought the land for half what Rezko paid for it?

Would that not have had a genuine appearance of impropriety? Like a property developer effectively giving a local politician $52,250 worth of property?

Yes, it would have stunk to high heaven. You all are looking at the wrong transaction. The funny business is not in the sale of the strip of land to Obama. It's in the initial purchase of that land by Rezko. That's the transaction that doesn't make sense except as a favor to Obama.

[Brainster]

I don't find it all that odd to offer more than something's apparent value, if it's something you really want, especially if you're in the position to make that sort of an offer.

To me, this is a case of, 'Hey, you're not using that, mind if I take (part of) it off your hands before you get rid of it altogether? I'll pay what you paid dollar for dollar even though this appraisal says it's not worth anywhere near that'.

Conversely, it could be that, since this Rezko guy seems to be a bit of a scumbag, that the asking price went up considerably when he found out that Obama wanted it, despite the appraisal. Like Ben said, it's not like you can buy a similarly sized strip of land half a block down the street for what Obama wanted to do with it.

But, I prefer the first scenario as I would like to assume the best possible of everyone involved without more information.

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction; I'm beginning to think that's intentional. The transaction that's suspicious is Rezko's initial purchase of the land.

[BenBurch]

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction; I'm beginning to think that's intentional. The transaction that's suspicious is Rezko's initial purchase of the land.

It wasn't. People buy land at over the market price all the time if they want to be THERE.

[corplinx]

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction

I am looking at the transaction. It appears to be a slumlord trying to curry favor with a politician. If you can show me where this resulted in a quid pro quo, then there is the transaction that is actually worrisome.

Shady characters will try to curry favor with authority. Its a given. Its when authority responds in kind that we start running news stories.

[daredelvis]

Yes, it would have stunk to high heaven. You all are looking at the wrong transaction. The funny business is not in the sale of the strip of land to Obama. It's in the initial purchase of that land by Rezko. That's the transaction that doesn't make sense except as a favor to Obama.

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction; I'm beginning to think that's intentional. The transaction that's suspicious is Rezko's initial purchase of the land.

Oh, how low can we go? Try again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3751298#post3751298
eta: In 2007 Rita Rezko (who is actually the owner of record) sold her part of the lot to a developer for $575,000. So Rezko actually made about $54,500 on this real estate deal after all was said and done.


The answer is, none, none more low.

Maybe people should stick to issues if they don't know the facts to back up their mud-slinging.

I am a little disappointed after seeing that Brainster is a biker in another thread. If this is the level of discourse, and the basis of how we select the next leader of "the last remaining superpower", there is plenty of smearing by association that can be done to McCain. Long term relationship with someone accused of stealing from a charitable organization??? Drugs at that???

Can't we leave the "Obama's political career was launched by Ayers" and other lies to the morons on AM radio and Bill O'reilley?

Daredelvis

[Brainster]

Oh, how low can we go? Try again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3751298#post3751298

The answer is, none, none more low.

Maybe people should stick to issues if they don't know the facts to back up their mud-slinging.

That they actually sold it for a net profit is certainly a point in favor of legitimacy, assuming we're talking about a market transaction, not somebody else doing Obama another favor. But it still leaves open the question of why the appraisal was so far off. Maybe they had a bad appraisal? Maybe Obama was going to try to lowball the deal before he realized how bad that would look?

I am a little disappointed after seeing that Brainster is a biker in another thread. If this is the level of discourse, and the basis of how we select the next leader of "the last remaining superpower", there is plenty of smearing by association that can be done to McCain. Long term relationship with someone accused of stealing from a charitable organization??? Drugs at that???

Those things should be and are being discussed. They are part of a rational skeptic's look at John McCain. Everything's fair game. What is this, a society tea where we look disdainfully above the hurly-burly?

Can't we leave the "Obama's political career was launched by Ayers" and other lies to the morons on AM radio and Bill O'reilley?

I myself am a little disappointed in the lack of skepticism when it comes to Obama. Here's a guy who's been on the national scene for four years and nobody's curious about his background. Nobody wonders what his influences are. Nobody wants to check out his friends. Because he gives a great speech and he has the right stance on issues x, y and z.

Look at the article in the OP (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/06/reality-check-t.html). Check out the source for the refutation of the relevant claim:

4. The Rezkos did not pay an inflated price for the vacant lot.

Obama has said his broker told him another interested party had already put in a bid on the lot at or close to the asking price of $625,000. No one has challenged this assertion.

That should get laughed out of any skeptic forum.

[Dr Adequate]

That they actually sold it for a net profit is certainly a point in favor of legitimacy, assuming we're talking about a market transaction, not somebody else doing Obama another favor. But it still leaves open the question of why the appraisal was so far off. Maybe they had a bad appraisal? Maybe Obama was going to try to lowball the deal before he realized how bad that would look?

I myself am a little disappointed in the lack of skepticism when it comes to Obama. But you are not being skeptical. You are --- may I put it bluntly? --- JAQing off.

You could, for example, have found out a long time ago that the deal on the lot made a net profit for Rezko. It wouldn't have taken a lot of google-fu, you could have looked on Wikipedia, like I did.

But now.

Oh really.

Maybe Obama was going to try to lowball the deal before he realized how bad that would look?

Jeesh, it's just like Truthers, isn't it. Any scenario so long as Bush Obama did 9/11 something wrong somewhere in this particular transaction. But phrased as a question.

Yes, it would have stunk to high heaven. You all are looking at the wrong transaction. The funny business is not in the sale of the strip of land to Obama. It's in the initial purchase of that land by Rezko. That's the transaction that doesn't make sense except as a favor to Obama. Oh, that's the right transaction. Thank you for explaining this to me. Y'see, when I hear about a corrupt money and land deal between a property dealer and a politician, my mind naturally jumps to the transaction between them involving land and money. I do not immediately think that the crucial transaction where the corruption between them took place was when the property dealer bought the land from some third party whom you have never mentioned.

Since you know that this is the right transaction to focus our attention on, presumably you have some knowledge of the "right" transaction and would impart it to us.

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction; I'm beginning to think that's intentional. The transaction that's suspicious is Rezko's initial purchase of the land. Paint us a picture.

[joobz]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but weren't all of these transactions occuring during the height of the Housing bubble?
During that time, it was quite quite common for property to be sold at prices far higher than the appraisal price. Loan companies were supposed to protect thier investments by ensuring that the sale prices were in line with the collateral. But they didn't. Not only were loans being given out to people who couldn't afford them, but properties were being sold well above thier worth.

[joobz]

Obama has said his broker told him another interested party had already put in a bid on the lot at or close to the asking price of $625,000. No one has challenged this assertion. That should get laughed out of any skeptic forum.
You are skeptical of Obama's assertion here.

BUT


The price the Obamas paid, $104,500, was a neat one-sixth of the price of the lot and more than double the value Obama said his appraiser put on the strip.It's interesting that Rezko, reportedly an experienced real estate investor, paid over twice the value per square foot that Obama's appraiser put on the lot.

You see no problem taking Obama at face value on his claim here.

Don't you think that's a bit selective in what you are skeptical about?

[Dr Adequate]

You see no problem taking Obama at face value on his claim here.

Don't you think that's a bit selective in what you are skeptical about? Well obviously if Obama was lying about what his appraiser said, that would do just as well.

So long as he's wrong in some way, we can start Whitewater II before he's even inaugurated. Who cares what happened?

[Brainster]

You are skeptical of Obama's assertion here.

BUT



You see no problem taking Obama at face value on his claim here.

Don't you think that's a bit selective in what you are skeptical about?

Excellent, I did not catch that! In fact, now that I look at it, much of the "debunking" in this piece amounts to nothing more than Obama's word. Check it out:

1. "...there was at least one other serious bidder on the lot." But as we have seen, this is based on what Obama says his broker told him.

2. Clearly ascribed to the sellers.

3. No source given.

4. Obama's word only.

5. Obama's word as to the appraised value. I assume the actual price has been confirmed through real estate records.

6. No source given.

7. No source given.

8. Opinion; no source.

So we can see that this is a pretty pathetic bit of debunking; unsourced for the most part and in at least several places relying on Obama's word.

[Megalodon]

But it still leaves open the question of why the appraisal was so far off. Maybe they had a bad appraisal? Maybe Obama was going to try to lowball the deal before he realized how bad that would look?

Maybe, just maybe, not all the areas of a vacant lot are worth the same.

And maybe the evaluation of the complete lot is independent of the evaluation of separate strips of that lot.

And maybe the least valuable area of a vacant lot is the one contiguous to the houses around that lot?

That should get laughed out of any skeptic forum.

Low hanging fruit...

[Megalodon]

Excellent, I did not catch that! In fact, now that I look at it, much of the "debunking" in this piece amounts to nothing more than Obama's word. Check it out:

So we can see that this is a pretty pathetic bit of debunking; unsourced for the most part and in at least several places relying on Obama's word.

Debunking of what? The onus is on the accusers to bring forth some evidence.

And no, innuendos don't count as evidence.

[Brainster]

Further info for those insisting that Rezko's sale of the rest of the land shows that it was a legitimate transaction. Care to guess who bought the land? Rezko's lawyer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702240237feb24,0,4469899.story).

The vacant lot once owned by Rita Rezko will be developed by a company owned by former Rezko business attorney Michael J. Sreenan. Rezko has no involvement with the new development, Sreenan said. "He's not a silent partner or anything like that," Sreenan said.

[shuize]

I seem to remember reading that the neighbor lot was originally zoned in such a way that by selling the strip of land it would render Rezko's whole parcel too small on which to build a house. If accurate, that would have allowed the Obamas to effectively push back their boarders for a fraction of the price and leave Rezko holding a lot with limited potential. Not normally the sort of deal a supposedly savvy developer like Rezko would make with his $600,000 investment.

[SezMe]

<snip> and he has the right stance on issues x, y and z.
Yep. Given everything about this real estate transaction you've provided, I'll take the right stance on x, y and z as the no-brainer preference for deciding how I vote.

[Minadin]

You guys keep looking at the wrong transaction; I'm beginning to think that's intentional. The transaction that's suspicious is Rezko's initial purchase of the land.

What do you mean by "you guys"?

[BenBurch]

What do you mean by "you guys"?

He means anybody even marginally in touch with reality.

[Tricky]

Further info for those insisting that Rezko's sale of the rest of the land shows that it was a legitimate transaction. Care to guess who bought the land? Rezko's lawyer (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0702240237feb24,0,4469899.story).
Wow, he sold the land to somebody he KNEW!!??? String him up.

[joobz]

Excellent, I did not catch that! In fact, now that I look at it, much of the "debunking" in this piece amounts to nothing more than Obama's word. Check it out:

1. "...there was at least one other serious bidder on the lot." But as we have seen, this is based on what Obama says his broker told him.

2. Clearly ascribed to the sellers.

3. No source given.

4. Obama's word only.

5. Obama's word as to the appraised value. I assume the actual price has been confirmed through real estate records.

6. No source given.

7. No source given.

8. Opinion; no source.

So we can see that this is a pretty pathetic bit of debunking; unsourced for the most part and in at least several places relying on Obama's word.
Actually, I agree that the article wasn't at all well referenced.

But, what is the point of all this? I see nothing unusual in the circumstances. Only innuendo.

[Dr Adequate]

But you are not being skeptical. You are --- may I put it bluntly? --- JAQing off...

Paint us a picture. To repeat myself, paint us a picture.

Please, come up with some scenario, consistent with the evidence, such that Obama took a bribe from Rezko.

It doesn't have to be well-evidenced, or anything, just any scenario consistent with the known facts such that Obama took a bribe. That is your first step.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, that's the right transaction. Thank you for explaining this to me. Y'see, when I hear about a corrupt money and land deal between a property dealer and a politician, my mind naturally jumps to the transaction between them involving land and money. I do not immediately think that the crucial transaction where the corruption between them took place was when the property dealer bought the land from some third party whom you have never mentioned.

Since you know that this is the right transaction to focus our attention on, presumably you have some knowledge of the "right" transaction and would impart it to us. I note that Brainster hasn't responded to this, either.

Hey, Brainster.

* waves hand in front of Brainster's eyes *

You say that the transaction we should be looking at is the transaction when Resko bought the property. Do tell us all about this nefarious transaction.

I am not afraid to learn the worst about Obama. Please reveal the hideous truth.

[corplinx]

Excellent, I did not catch that! In fact, now that I look at it, much of the "debunking" in this piece amounts to nothing more than Obama's word. Check it out:

1. "...there was at least one other serious bidder on the lot." But as we have seen, this is based on what Obama says his broker told him.

2. Clearly ascribed to the sellers.

3. No source given.

4. Obama's word only.

5. Obama's word as to the appraised value. I assume the actual price has been confirmed through real estate records.

6. No source given.

7. No source given.

8. Opinion; no source.

So we can see that this is a pretty pathetic bit of debunking; unsourced for the most part and in at least several places relying on Obama's word.

Maybe its because there is nothing to debunk. Nobody has found a case of Obama doing favors for Rezko.

[dirtywick]

Meh, it's entirely possible he just really wanted that strip of land and was willing to pay almost double it's value to have it. People make bad decisions all the time.

Besides, I heard Obama was balling on a few million at the time from some book deal or something. What's a few hundred thousand to get your perfect land when you've got bank like that? Provide for your family, build the life you want to live, that's what money is for.

Plus, he's married. If Mrs. Obama really wanted that land...well, you know how that goes. My wife wants an SUV, I don't. We're probably going to be driving an SUV. Just saying.

[Brainster]

To repeat myself, paint us a picture.

Please, come up with some scenario, consistent with the evidence, such that Obama took a bribe from Rezko.

It doesn't have to be well-evidenced, or anything, just any scenario consistent with the known facts such that Obama took a bribe. That is your first step.

Let's say the seller is selling a house, but they want to sell an additional parcel of land as well. Obama doesn't want the land, but he wants the house. Let's further say that Rezko wants to give Obama (effectively) a couple hundred thousand. Just a way of buying a little influence in the future; nothing quite so gauche as a bribe. Obama presents a deal to the sellers: We'll pay full price for the land, but you've gotta knock a couple hundred thousand off the house price.

It fits all the known facts. It effectively amounts to Rezko giving Obama a couple hundred thousand, laundered by the sellers. But there's one problem; Rezko has overpaid for the land. So Obama offers to buy a small strip of it back at the price Rezko paid, thereby making Rezko's purchase look more like a market deal. Obama's still well ahead; he got a $300,000 discount on the home, he paid $100,000 for the land, so he's $200,000 in the black plus a little extra land.

It's not quite as obvious as, say, cattle futures trading. But if you wanted to give somebody a couple hundred thousand this is a very easy method of doing so.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's say the seller is selling a house, but they want to sell an additional parcel of land as well. Obama doesn't want the land, but he wants the house. Let's further say that Rezko wants to give Obama (effectively) a couple hundred thousand. Just a way of buying a little influence in the future; nothing quite so gauche as a bribe. Obama presents a deal to the sellers: We'll pay full price for the land, but you've gotta knock a couple hundred thousand off the house price.

It fits all the known facts. It effectively amounts to Rezko giving Obama a couple hundred thousand, laundered by the sellers. But there's one problem; Rezko has overpaid for the land. So Obama offers to buy a small strip of it back at the price Rezko paid, thereby making Rezko's purchase look more like a market deal. Obama's still well ahead; he got a $300,000 discount on the home, he paid $100,000 for the land, so he's $200,000 in the black plus a little extra land.

It's not quite as obvious as, say, cattle futures trading. But if you wanted to give somebody a couple hundred thousand this is a very easy method of doing so. That's ingeneous, I like it. I'm not sure that it constitutes a scandal, but if you think it does, start digging the dirt. What, exactly, would one need to prove?

For example, if the two lots were originally offered on the market as one property, this would surely strengthen your hypothesis.

[BenBurch]

That's ingeneous, I like it. I'm not sure that it constitutes a scandal, but if you think it does, start digging the dirt. What, exactly, would one need to prove?

For example, if the two lots were originally offered on the market as one property, this would surely strengthen your hypothesis.

Ingenious? I'd call it desperate. But yes, let him conduct a title search and prove the first word of it. And I would like him to explain why the REPUBLICANS who prosecuted the Rezko case never thought to look there?

The answer of course is that they undoubtedly DID look into every aspect of this transaction. It was clear from their press statements early on that they wanted to find something on Senator Obama. That there was nothing in their case about him speaks volumes - unless you are also going to claim that the prosecutors in this case were paid off by Obama.

[BenBurch]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11041.html

In a letter (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM103_rezko_sbh444.html) to the U.S. District judge who presided over his trial, Rezko, who was convicted this month of 16 corruption-related counts including fraud and money laundering, called prosecutors “overzealous.” And he singled out what he said were their efforts to get him to turn on Obama, an Illinois Senator and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Illinois Gov. Rod Bagojevich.

“They are pressuring me to tell them the ‘wrong’ things that I supposedly know about Governor Bagojevich and Senator Obama,” Rezko wrote in an undated letter released by the court this week. “I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people.”

[SezMe]

The quoted portion is hilarious. Rezko claims he will "never hurt innocent people" yet has been convicted of fraud and other charges. I guess his fraudulent activities never hurt anybody. Riiiiight. The guy is a scuzebucket.

[BenBurch]

The quoted portion is hilarious. Rezko claims he will "never hurt innocent people" yet has been convicted of fraud and other charges. I guess his fraudulent activities never hurt anybody. Riiiiight. The guy is a scuzebucket.

I think he was drawing a distinction between property crime, which fraud is, and sending an innocent person to jail to save one's own neck. And you know, that does seem like a real distinction to me...

[Lurker]

Yes, it would have stunk to high heaven. You all are looking at the wrong transaction. The funny business is not in the sale of the strip of land to Obama. It's in the initial purchase of that land by Rezko. That's the transaction that doesn't make sense except as a favor to Obama.

Um, didn't Rezko later sell the rest of that property at a profit? That makes sense to me.

[SezMe]

I think he was drawing a distinction between property crime, which fraud is, and sending an innocent person to jail to save one's own neck. And you know, that does seem like a real distinction to me...
I don't disagree - there is a substantive difference. But Rezko wrote, "I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people." You gotta have a brass pair (or a blind eye) to think that fraud does not hurt innocent people...and to put that in a letter to a judge who is (presumably) deciding on what his punishment should be. Were I that judge, I would assess that Rezko still does not get the severity of his actions.

[BenBurch]

I don't disagree - there is a substantive difference. But Rezko wrote, "I will take what comes my way, but I will never hurt innocent people." You gotta have a brass pair (or a blind eye) to think that fraud does not hurt innocent people...and to put that in a letter to a judge who is (presumably) deciding on what his punishment should be. Were I that judge, I would assess that Rezko still does not get the severity of his actions.

OK! I get where you're coming from and don't disagree with that, either.