<p>I think graft can only be generally practiced by people in a position of power. So politicians, public servants, and CEOs, I don’t think political stripe matter as much.</p>
<p>What’s the big deal? They spent less upgrading Sen. Stevens’ house than a convicted briber spent buying the side lawn and driveway for the Democratic Senator (and Presidential candidate) who carried the briber’s water in Illinois politics for years.</p>
<p>So lets see-- sounds like all politicians are all scumbags…</p>
<p>Re post #22</p>
<p>Looks like not all the Hillary supporters have been converted. Do I sense some bitterness? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That appears to be the case.</p>
<p>Dennis Kozlowski spent company money to buy himself and the wife lavish gifts. He’s on ice at a federal penitentiary also.</p>
<p>Indictments are not a conviction.
William Jefferson has been under indictment for over a year now…where’s the outrage there? He even won re-election after the news of the bribe taking video and investigation came out.</p>
<p>Reading the story about Stevens’ indictment in the Wall Street Journal yesterday reminded me of Robert Duvall’s line in Apocalypse Now: “I love the smell of burning elephant in the morning!”</p>
<p>“What’s the big deal? They spent less upgrading Sen. Stevens’ house than a convicted briber spent buying the side lawn and driveway for the Democratic Senator (and Presidential candidate) who carried the briber’s water in Illinois politics for years.”</p>
<p>And Obama was indicted for this when?</p>
<p>By the way, Stevens is fighting it.</p>
<p>Stevens wasn’t indicted for years after the federal investigation into the alleged bribers.</p>
<p>Patrick Fitzgerald just got the first conviction in the Chicago bribery/corruption investigation, an investigation in which both Obama and the Illinois governor are referenced in the court filings as “Politician A” and the like.</p>
<p>I doubt Obama will be indicted, but free use of a $625,000 side yard/garden and driveway provided by a political fixer stinks like yesterday’s garbage, no matter how you slice it. There’s absolutely no difference between Obama and Stevens in benefitting from political cronies putting them in nicer homes.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with interesteddad…slice anyway you want to Obama would never have gotten that sweet deal if he was just an avg citizen. IMHO as a realtor Rezcko would have bought both and sold them together for a higher profit, than buying 1 and selling a sliver to Obama so the easement would no longer exist.</p>
<p>Hate to say it, but for a Harvard Law graduate, how didn’t he see that was bending the law just a tad bit! (He colluded with Rezcko to get that property) Granted it was legal, but Joe Shmo wouldn’t have had the same opportunity…Obama had Rezko buy the adjoining and sell to him…it is not as if Rezcko owned the property and Obama bought the adjoining! I could give the benefit of doubt for the latter!</p>
<p>And this after Obama’s political relationship with Rezko dating back to Harvard Law. One of Obama’s “community organizing” activities was to find minority-owned non-profits to serve as “development partners” for Rezko’s government funded slum developments – developments for which the taxpayers forked over $100 million. Obama then represented these local non-profits while partners in his law firm represented Rezko and later had equity stakes in Rezko’s development companies.</p>
<p>The whole scheme was pure Chicago politics and the losers were Obama’s south side constituents who lived without heat in Rezko’s buildings after he pocketed the government money and put the properties into default on the loans.</p>
<p>bullet:</p>
<p>I believe the original scheme was for Rezko to simply let Obama use the property until Obama could afford to buy it. But, once Rezko got indicted, it smelled too bad, even for Chicago politics. At that point, Obama tried to establish “plausible deniability” by buying a slice of the Resko land and erecting a fence.</p>