Monday, February 25, 2008

Rezko, Auchi and Obama

In 2003, Nick Cohen at the Guardian wrote:

Allow me to introduce you to Nadhmi Auchi. He was charged in the 1950s with being an accomplice of Saddam Hussein, when the future tyrant was acquiring his taste for blood. He was investigated in the 1980s for his part in alleged bribes to the fabulously corrupt leaders of post-war Italy. In the 1990s, the Belgium Ambassador to Luxembourg claimed that Auchi's bank held money Saddam and Colonel Gadaffi had stolen from their luckless peoples. In 2002, officers from the Serious Fraud Squad raided the offices of one of Auchi's drug companies as part of an investigation of what is alleged to be the biggest swindle ever of the NHS. With allegations, albeit unproven, like these hanging over him, wouldn't you think that British MPs would have the sense to stay away?

Forget the British MPs. Tony Rezko didn't have the sense to stay away from Nadhmi Auchi. And now The Times reports that the "British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender."

The gist of the Times' story is that the Rezkos were broke at the time the Chicago property developer's wife bought a garden lot for full price just as Barack Obama was sold the house adjacent at a $300,000 discount. Obama later expanded his property by purchasing part of the garden lot from the Rezkos at $104,500 when it was appraised at $40,500.

Asked if she [Mrs Rezko] used money from her husband to buy the land next to Mr Obama's house, she said: "I can't answer these questions, I'm sorry."

Asked how long she and her husband had known Mr Auchi, she replied: "I will not be able to answer this question."

Mr Auchi's lawyer, asked whether the Fintrade Services loan was used to buy the land which became Mr Obama's garden, stated: "No, not as far as my client is aware."

Because both the Rezko garden and Obama house purchases were made on the same day the suggestion in the Times' story is that they were essentially one transaction and that Nadhmi Auchi anted up for Rezko. Bloomberg describes how the sale took place.

Rezko's wife, Rita, also an Obama donor, bought the adjoining plot in Hyde Park from the couple, Fredric Wondisford and Sally Radovick, for the $625,000 asking price, the same day that Obama bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price. Antoin Rezko was under federal investigation at the time. ...

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's campaign ... said Obama, 46, toured the property with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes at some point before the purchase. Burton said Obama wanted Rezko's opinion of the property because Rezko was a real-estate developer in the area.... the sellers had "stipulated that the closing dates for the two properties were to be the same."

According to the Times, court records showed that Auchi virtually owned Rezko.

According to court documents, Mr Rezko's lawyer said his client had "longstanding indebtedness" to Mr Auchi's GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million. Under a Loan Forgiveness Agreement described in court, Mr Auchi lent Mr Rezko $3.5 million in April 2005 and $11 million in September 2005, as well as the $3.5 million transferred in April 2007.

That agreement provided for the outstanding loans to be "forgiven" in return for a stake in the 62-acre Riverside Park development.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, loaned Tony Rezko $3.5 million on on May 23 2005 through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA. Three weeks later Rezko and Obama simultaneously bought the properties.

Both Mr Auchi and Mr Obama say they have no memory of meeting each other. But, according to a source, the two may have had a brief encounter at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago where Mr Auchi’s visit was being honoured with a dinner attended by the Governor when Mr Obama, coincidentally in the hotel, dropped in.

An aide to Mr Obama said he did attend an event at the Four Seasons at which Mr Rezko was present but does not remember meeting Mr Auchi. "He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people," the aide said. "We do not remember individual people."

Prosecutors say that, after Mr Auchi was unable to enter the United States in 2005, Mr Rezko approached the US State Department to get him a visa and apparently asked "certain Illinois government officials to do the same." Mr Obama denies he was approached. Mr Auchi's lawyer has emphasised to The Times that it would be entirely false to imply that money had been lent by GMH to Mr Rezko in return for Mr Rezko seeking to assist Mr Auchi to obtain a visa. The two men's relationship, the lawyer stressed, was a business one.

Auchi was barred from entering the US in 2005 after having been convicted for fraud in France as an undesirable alien.

Cohen in his 2003 Guardian article described Auchi as "the thirteenth-richest man in Britain, and he has been able to collect British politicians the way other people collect stamps." Auchi was as gold-plated as they came. Wikipedia notes:

He was Vice-Chair of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University between 1996 and 2000. ... Nadhmi Auchi was honoured in 2003 by the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George with the honour and dignity of Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Francis I in recognition of his major contributions to inter-church and inter-faith dialogue. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II granted him his Coat of Arms in 2004. In the same year the President of the Republic of Lebanon, His Excellency General Emile Lahoud, awarded Mr Auchi with the First Grade of the Lebanese Order of Merit having already appointed him as a Commander of the National Order of the Cedar in 2000. He was also awarded the Ponitifical Order of St. Sylvester Pope and Martyr by John Paul II in 2004.

Whatever path took Auchi to Tony Rezko's doorstep must have been an interesting one indeed.




22 Comments:

Blogger Alexis said...

So Barack Obama is sleazy. That won’t put a dent into his appeal.

When I refer to Barack Obama as a creature of cognitive dissonance, I mean what I say. He thrives on the uncertainty of whether he is or he isn’t. Moreover, Barack Obama thrives on hate. He will irritate certain opponents by using code phrases and various forms of nonverbal communication, and then act serene as his opponents get increasingly upset. I understand this tactic very, very well.

Barack Obama shines when he is calm and unflappable, exuding a demeanor of false moderation. As long as one sounds reasonable and moderate, one can advocate the most radical and revolutionary ideas without sounding revolutionary. In Barack Obama’s case, he takes his revolution a step further. By refusing to commit any extreme ideas to writing, he can bask in the glow of the oratory of his wife, his pastor, and Farrakhan. He can endorse reparations for slavery in passing and get away with it.

Barack Obama is using a political version of the rope-a-dope. The more he comes across as a punching bag, the more sympathy he elicits and the more likely he gets elected. Verbal attacks on Obama will only waste one’s energy. Instead, it would be better for any political opponent to ignore Barack Obama entirely. Moreover, it is critical to find some means to drain media attention away from Obama’s campaign, for media attention is the oxygen Barack Obama’s candidacy thrives on.

Part of this man’s appeal is that he is not part of a gutter rap culture that rewards an image of black people no better than the old minstrel shows. Both Barack Obama and his wife look like well-dressed singers from classic 1960’s Motown. They evoke nostalgia for a retro version of black nationalism. The Obama power couple is upscale and it cultivates an upscale mystique. They appeal in inverse to the common prejudice that the only people who are dangerous are the shabby dressers; because they dress well, their audience is supposed to be at ease. (This is a common technique of confidence artists.)

If he’s corrupt, you’ll be told not to worry about it because it isn’t important. And to him, it isn’t. As a rule, one can act absolutely outrageously while being perceived as normal by acting as if everything is normal. It's the Addams Family Effect. While the Clintons are experts at damage control, the Obamas are experts at ignoring scandals.

Barack and Michelle Obama do have their weaknesses. Each of them is vain and each of them has a very thin skin. They may be adept at provoking outrage while looking serene, but they are not the only practitioners of that art, and they are not accustomed to seeing their own tactics used against them. In the meantime, the Democratic primary season is instructive, for it shows what strategies don’t work against Barack Obama.

2/25/2008 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Democratic Primaries are not reflective of national politics.

Obama's corrupt ties to SADDAM'S financier re-inforce the main worry about Obama -- soft on Jihad/Islam/Muslim weakness combined with anti-Americanism and Black racialism.

It's not just the sleaze. It's the Saddam-sleaze which offers a juicy target on Obama on Iraq: Bought and paid for by Saddam.

For every hype about how Obama is uplifting and the choice of Muslims worldwide, there is a counter-reaction. Like how Dunkin Donuts thrives on the counter-reaction to Starbucks and the Yuppie infestation found there.

Obama is not very bright, not very experienced, and not skilled in making arguments to the mass of Americans. Chris Matthews may get a thrill up his leg, but most Americans figure he's an entitlement king like his wife is an entitlement queen.

His Yuppie-scale attitude will tick off most downscale White Americans. I.E. the majority of voters.

2/25/2008 11:33:00 PM  
Blogger Fred Farkle said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any corruption here on Obama's part.

So somebody says he paid a little low here or a little high there, and he pitched in with his neighbor to build a nice fence. Who cares?

I don't see a problem. This is awfully small beer even to call sleazy.

2/25/2008 11:57:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat@hotmail.com said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any corruption here on Obama's part.

Correct.

You might make the argument that the Rezko/Obama sale was a single transaction with transfer price but you couldn't prove it.

But the "something" here is that Nadhmi Auchi went out of his way to lend Rezko the money to do the real estate deal. Obama may have had no knowledge of the transaction. But the simple fact that Auchi's money undergirded the transaction was something Auchi could use to hold over Obama in the future. He would hav "had" something on Obama, even if Obama was ignorant of events.

You don't need to believe anything bad about Obama to worry about this deal. You only need to believe something bad about Auchi. And Auchi's already been convicted in France of corruption, involving the oil giant ELF, though surprisingly the details are far and few on the web. Auchi can't even enter the US because he's an undesirable alien.

So it's correct to say that nothing in the Times account proves corrupt action by Barack Obama. But it's fair to surmise that Auchi may have been up to no good.

2/26/2008 12:54:00 AM  
Blogger Alexis said...

One more thing. Barack Obama might not need the votes of working class white people to get elected to the Presidency. Imagine an affirmative action presidency where Republicans from corporate America gush over him as much as Democrats from academe. While he relies upon turnout of his own supporters, it is far from certain that his opponents will actually vote.

Barack Obama relies not merely on upscale voters, but upscale wannabes. The Obama campaign sells middle class Americans the illusion of status, the illusion of at least vicariously being part of a classy upscale lifestyle when one sends him a campaign contribution. Obama also thrives on the myth that the only people who will vote against him are the Archie Bunkers of the world.

2/26/2008 12:58:00 AM  
Blogger wretchardthecat@hotmail.com said...

Nadhmi Auchi has been a busy bee. Even his conviction in France didn't slow him down. This, from a recent article in the Baltimore Sun regarding a cell phone contract scandal in Iraq.

The selection of the Egyptian firm Orascom created a furor among losing bidders and prompted allegations that the CPA had failed to investigate the company thoroughly.

One of Orascom's investors is Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born British businessman widely reported to have brokered deals with Hussein's regime. Last month, a French court fined Auchi and gave him a two-year suspended sentence for accepting illegal commissions from Elf, the French oil company.

A CPA official who declined to be identified said Auchi's stake in Orascom was "not very significant."

But Charles R. Johnston, a Washington lawyer who represents Turkcell, said: "If Orascom, with these connections, is entitled to win a license and operate, it neutralizes the [Bush administration's] whole concept of de-Baathification of Iraq."


So, if the fact that Auchi held a share in a company which bid for cellphone contracts in Iraq "neutralizes the [Bush administration's] whole concept of de-Baathification of Iraq", what do we make of a situation where Auchi may have financed the purchase of Barack Obama's house?

As I said earlier, Obama may have had no knowledge of anything. So far as he was concerned he bought the house off the market. Was there a transfer pricing deal between Rezko and the real estate company? And did Auchi lend Rezko, who apparently broke, the money to buy a new house? This is what the investigation into Rezko may turn up.

2/26/2008 01:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Was it the Angry in the North Guy, Captain Ed, or here that did quite a bit about Elf a few years back?

2/26/2008 01:43:00 AM  
Blogger Jimmy said...

If, indeed it is looking like Hillary is throwing everything but "...the kitchen sink (NYT)" at Obama, she cannot ever hope to use this. As was stated in Right Wing Nuthouse's post, this is a complicated nut a la Whitewater (and we all know how effective that was on anyone but hard core conservatives).

I think alexis is correct in that Obama has been very effective in building an image that has a built-in defense against sleeze attacks, and of pretty much any kind except buggary.

No, McCain and the Replubicans need to carry on where, ironically, Hillary is just now starting. Get him to commit to specifics, more specifics and much more specifics.

His image cannot tolerate the risk of boring his audience, and look for a key moment in the summer season (or maybe in the primary season...the Hail Mary that Hillary is perhaps hoping for) where he commits his biggest blunder: "I will fully formulate that policy once I am in office".

That is and has always been political suicide.

2/26/2008 02:26:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Peter Sellers Foretold Obama

And then there is “Yes we can” – the phrase that was so inspirational that it inspired Will.i.am of hip-hop group the Black Eyed Peas to make his infamous video , backed up by film stars and musicians such as Scarlett Johansson and Herbie Hancock.

The strumming of guitars and crooning drowns out Mr Obama on the musical version. So I had to consult the text to find out what exactly it is that we can do.

“Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.”


This sounds to me like a man doing an impression of what he thinks a great speech might be like. It is the kind of empty exhortation that usually gives politicians a bad name.

Peter Sellers, a British comedian of the 1960s, caught the genre nicely in a parody speech:
Let us assume a bold thrust and go forward together. Let us carry the fight against ignorance to the four corners of the earth, because it is a fight that concerns us all.”

Mr Obama might easily give a speech like that – although he would probably strip out some of the detail.

2/26/2008 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger always right said...

I don't think this will make any dent either. People accepted (a long time ago) that all politicians are sleazy.

Especially during and after 2006 election, the whole GOP got broad-sided as one giant corrupt and child-molesting party.

The more dirt you dig up, the firmer the belief that VRWC is out to get their flesh and blood Messiah.

2/26/2008 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger david leaner said...

T.E. Lawrence updated: “Barack of America,” with panoramic scenes and soaring score.

The voters I see who are enamored with Obama don’t admit to the romantic screenplay in their heads in which it doesn’t much matter whether he wears Hussein flowing robes or a smooth cool black suit or is touched a tad by taint; they envision the mystery interloper and man on the scene come to save us, a racially and spiritually corrupt America, in the multicultural metrosexual adventure of his life, with friend-women in supporting roles: Oprah as VP, Angelina as Secretary of State, Sean Penn SecDef, Susan Saranwrap as UN Ambassador, Bono as Minister of Conscience, and the ghost of Barbara Jordan chafing at her headscarf as his guiding light.

Plot: soon we will all be holding hands across the globe on the verge of cosmic unity and universal understanding/ health care.

2/26/2008 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

I would not be too quick to assume upwardly mobile and wannabees are a decisive voting bloc.

Look at Apple Computer -- around 3-4% of market share yet their retail stores are always packed and they're always advertising. Most people take plain old cheap PCs.

In a time of recession the appetite for middle class voters for upwardly mobile social schtick is pretty thin. Starbucks is losing money and closing for three hours to retrain it's baristas. I guess $5 Lattes are not selling.

Obama presents a risk on tax increases, Affirmative Action (married women at risk through their husbands), and gun-grabs. He'll get single women, Blacks, and rich white yuppies but that's about it. He won't get much Latino vote because the more he becomes the "Black" Candidate through Farrakhan etc. the more a turf-war for Affirmative Action spoils with Latinos rears it's head. Only so many spots to go around. A spot for a Black means none for a Latino.

The corruption scandal will be: Auichi paid for Obama's house through Rezko, Obama lobbied to get Auichi into the US. Saddam's banker.

McCain's 527's can hit him for wanting out of Iraq to pay off favors to Saddam's banker. Easy mark. Hits the hypocrisy mark which Black pols who play both sides -- non-racial and "Black Candidate" set themselves up for. Obama's only as strong as self-imposed weakness in criticizing the Black Candidate(tm) makes one. Yes he's got the Press swooning for him. They reach a lot fewer and influence less than ever before.

2/26/2008 03:05:00 PM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

The sleazy breeze doesn't begin to explore from where the foul odor wafts. That the funds that bought Obama's house, were wrought from funds that Auchi defrauded Iraqi citizens of in the Oil for Food Scam is enough to require a full scale investigation of this obamanation of decency. It should not be considered guilt by association. It is a full investment of ill gotten gains for the purchase of an American Politician. How many others have been similarly bought? This is nothing that will easily or should be allowed to easily drip below the fold only to drop off the front page and die an obscure death near the obits.

Democrat for sale, again. I should not be surprised but I am angry, very angry. Why do I not think I am alone in such a reaction.

As for the Clinton's, takes one to know one, no doubt.

2/26/2008 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

Sorry, I need to add this http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi

and thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2926335.stm

for support

2/26/2008 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger Randy said...

Fred Farkle said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any corruption here on Obama's part.


One of Obama's claims that appeals to many voters is that he takes no money from lobbyists. Taking money from lobbyists isn't corrupt in the first place, so why make that an important part of your campaign stump?

Corruption aside, this transaction makes it clear that the money funding the Obama campaign (and the people he associates with) are not as pure as he would have the electorate believe.

Cascajun

2/26/2008 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Fred said...

As a citizen who likes to thoughtfully size up the candidates and the historical context we find ourselves in, I am genuinely alarmed when political campaigns devolve into arguments about corruption scandals, rhetorical styles, and strategies about how to maneuver around the other guy's strategy.

Context: We find ourselves, as unbelievers, in the cross hairs of recrudescent Islamic jihad. It had been slumbering for the better part of three centuries, Barbary jihad pirates being one of those rare episodes after the European powers had laid the Islamic hopes low before the gates of Vienna. Hassan al Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood revived it in the 20th century, and Sayyid Qutb intellectually buried Pan-Arabism and socialism in the Middle East, whetting the faithful's appetites for the Sword of the Prophet.

There are a variety of military, cultural, and economic challenges gathering momentum in our time to challenge the historic trajectory of our Constitutional republic. You can fill this statement out with many facts and events which put meat on the bones of it.

The survival of our nation and of civilization itself hangs in the balance.

Our domestic situation has some formidable challenges. How do we continue to grow the economy in such a way as to insure that pathways to success and prosperity are open to all? We are also facing a monster of an entitlements funding dilemma. And our federal budget must be put under spending control. We need to keep taxes at a level which does not threaten to stifle the engine of growth: small start up companies with new products and ideas that need to be allowed to grow. These are not the kind of businesses that outsource to China or India - the companies that do that are in a mature phase of their products' or industries' cycles. So, an education system that cannot seem to raise expectations of the kids remains a problem to be solved. Don't expect the NEA to solve that problem.

So, put the sketchy template of Barack Obama's expressed views and voting record against this backdrop. The rest is just noise.

2/26/2008 06:38:00 PM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

Money is Loaned? to Mr Obama's fund raiser by the same fellow who made the one third off fire sale price come true for that mansion.

And some might wonder how with a combined income of $37,000 the Resko's could have accrued that many hundreds of thousands in debt, especially when under investigation or had he already been indited.

I'm sorry, looks like a duck. sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck and even sounds like a duck.

It might be a goose, a golden goose, right?

The only difference between the DEM's front runners for President is the nationality of their financiers. Clinton's is Chineese, Obama's is Saddam era Iraqi and fellow traveler of the Stalinist tradition.

Yup, that was some boneheaded decision, Mr. Obama. Some bonehead.

2/26/2008 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger skyblu5555 said...

I despise thin skinned candidates for Presidency as much as those who create false hope for the young or naive. This is why I will vote for Chance Gardener '08!

Must of you are probably too young to remember this Peter Sellers film that was a spoof on US Presidential elections....
In it, the character Chancey Gardner, played by Peter Sellers, a simply guy who looked after plants, was elected President.

It began and accelerated and catapulted him into the Presidency by answering questions asked with garden metaphors subject to interpretation by the questioner. So, his answers were interpreted to mean what the questioner wanted his answers to mean!

Thus I abandon false hope and those of thin skin; and war mongers for
Chancey Gardner!

Go, Chance, Go! But I do have one proviso; if the D's get it together to nominate a worthy candidate, I shall instead, vote for that candidate!

3/07/2008 12:09:00 PM  
Blogger sb11 said...

“When it comes to lobbyists, Senator Obama’s words might sound nice but voters need to make sure they read the fine print. Despite trying to give the impression that he has no relationship with lobbyists or special interests, the reality is that Senator Obama takes money from people who hire lobbyists, partners of lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists, former lobbyists and state lobbyists.” –Statement from Clinton Deputy Communications Director, Phil Singer

False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies
"It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.” – Clinton Campaign Spokesman Phil Singer

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I wont let them block change anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar – are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company.

So he takes from Lobbyists he takes from Oil companies says he doesn't take from either so he also LIES!!! Also had a shady real estate deal with indicted real estate mogul Syrian Tony Rezko

3/30/2008 12:35:00 AM  
Blogger sb11 said...

“When it comes to lobbyists, Senator Obama’s words might sound nice but voters need to make sure they read the fine print. Despite trying to give the impression that he has no relationship with lobbyists or special interests, the reality is that Senator Obama takes money from people who hire lobbyists, partners of lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists, former lobbyists and state lobbyists.” –Statement from Clinton Deputy Communications Director, Phil Singer

False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies
"It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they’ll fix the ad.” – Clinton Campaign Spokesman Phil Singer

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I wont let them block change anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar – are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company.

So he takes from Lobbyists he takes from Oil companies says he doesn't take from either so he also LIES!!! Also had a shady real estate deal with indicted real estate mogul Syrian Tony Rezko

3/30/2008 12:36:00 AM  
Blogger sb11 said...

Obama campaign has not released which cases Obama worked on involving Rezko/Rezmar. "Asked what Rezko cases Obama worked on, Miner (a firm partner) told the Sun-Times, 'We’ll put together a list of the cases he worked on involving Rezko/Rezmar in the next day or two.' That was March 13 [2007]. He never provided the information." [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07]

Obama refuses to name the UBS broker that purchased the stocks in his 'quasi-blind' trust. "Obama had about $100,000 he wanted to invest in 2005. The money was a portion of the $1.2 million he got from a book contract. He said Wednesday he decided the $100,000 could be put into something "more high risk" and asked a friend to recommend a stock broker. That friend was donor George W. Haywood, who held what the New York Times called "major" positions in the two stocks Obama ended up owning, Skyterra and AVI BioPharma…. Obama declined to name the UBS broker." [Sweet column, Chicago Sun-Times, 3/8/07]

3/30/2008 12:40:00 AM  
Blogger sb11 said...

After making such a big deal about Hillary sitting on the board of Wal-Mart it seems his own wife Michelle makes lots of money and huge stock dividends from Wal-Mart biggest food supplier Treehouse Foods...sort of like "the pot calling the kettle black" NO PUN INTENDED!!!

3/30/2008 12:42:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger