Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The Obama trail

I have to write in a hurry, which means that I won't be able to arrange my thoughts properly. If you want a quick-n-easy bottom line, I can't help you -- not right now.

If what you are about to read seems a bit disjointed or odd, consider this post a mere teaser -- a hint of things to come.

I've been looking into Evelyn Pringle's stories about the Illinois "Combine," a criminal/political cartel which includes Barack Obama, along with many other noteworthy figures in Chicago. The links on the left hand side of the page go to her introductory pieces. Her most recent investigations are compiled in a series called "Curtain Time For Barack Obama," which you can find in various places. Rezko Watch is serializing it.

Warning: You'll probably be frustrated with her work. Her purpose is not so much to "get Obama" but to deliver a Cinemascope picture of corruption in Illinois. Obama is part of that widescreen image, though only a part; the close-ups don't make sense without the establishing shots.

If you really must have a bottom line, try this:

Tony Rezko's partner in corruption was Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Patrick Fitzgerald calls their criminal conspiracy "Operation Board Games" because the Rezko/Blagojevich Combine got control of two important boards -- one in control of health services, the other in control of a teacher's pension fund. With the boards in hand, the two mobsters were free to loot and pillage.

The name of their game was "pay-to-play": If you wanted a state or city contract, you needed to pay off certain politicians. One of those pols was Barack Obama, who routinely got between one-tenth to one-third the amounts given to Blagojevich. (Blago was Rezko's first choice to become POTUS. That plan was scuttled when the Combine got into legal trouble.) Obama, listed as "a political candidate" in Fitz's indictment, received $10,000 from the teacher's fund.

How did the Combine get control of the health services board? Through a law created and guided by State Senator Barack Obama.

There was no need for this law. It's sole purpose was to reduce the number of supervisors and to place the board completely in the hands of Blago's creatures. Afterward, Barack Obama got a piece of the action with nearly every crooked transaction.

We'll have more to say about all that later.

Right now, I want to note that I've been looking into various subsidiary aspects of the Illinois Combine scandal -- and I've found that certain names have cropped up in previous stories.

Ask yourself: Just how did Obama become so fantastically well-funded so quickly, once he announced for President?
Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street.
We've all heard of the most of those names. For some of you, Citadel will be unfamiliar. The name had previously cropped up in the course of our research in the Gus Boulis scandal.

Boulis, you will recall, was the casino boat owner who was forced to sell to Jack Abramoff. Boulis sold but was not paid. He protested -- and got himself killed, ambushed in traffic. As you will recall, 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta was on one of those casino ships shortly before the Big Wedding. In the past, I've theorized that the ships could have been used for drug transactions.

Jack Abramoff coveted Gus Boulis’ casino business in the worst possible way. So he "supposedly” duped an otherwise savvy Chicago hedge fund named Citadel Investment into lending him $32 million to purchase Boulis’ fleet of a dozen unlicensed offshore gambling vessels.

Then, in relatively short order, having been paid no more than a mere pittance of the agreed-upon sale price, Gus Boulis was dead.
Citidel seems to have been awfully understanding, considering the sum of money involved. The fund is run by the secretive billionaire (and noted art collector) Kenneth Griffen, who is all of 40 years old.

Again: I've given you just a teaser. There will be much more to come. Stay tuned.

10 comments:

orionATL said...

uh oh.

looks like someone is finally going to start connecting the dots in illinois corruption TO state senator obama.

i'll wait eagerly for the next installment.

OTE admin said...

Joseph, that is an EXCELLENT summary of Pringle's reports. It's too bad she can't condense it as well.

Bottom line is Obama is seriously tainted and unelectable as a result. It does make one wonder why in the world he ever bothered to run for president knowing he couldn't get elected. If he did, he would be impeached the first day he took office, only this time there would be justification for it.

The fact he raises such obscene amounts of money makes me wonder who really is supporting him. It can't be just little donors.

Citizen K said...

Joe, have you seen this article in The Atlantic?

The Amazing Money Machine: How Silicon Valley made Barack Obama this year’s hottest start-up

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance

Mark Gorenberg of Hummer Winblad and Steve Spinner, angel investor, also connected to NBC, are notables.

rjarnold said...

After doing a search I found an article that mentioned Kenneth Griffin.

http://eng.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=382405&rel_no=1

"The bundling groups include businessmen like billionaire Kenneth Griffin who started backing Obama just as he hired a team of lobbyist to urge Congress to preserve a "lucrative tax loophole," according to the Washington Post."

Anonymous said...

Susan said, "It does make one wonder why in the world he ever bothered to run for president knowing he couldn't get elected."

But isn't the belief that you won't, or can't, get caught, something that criminals think? I mean, Obama's shown quite a bit of arrogance, and it would fit that he was arrogant enough to think he wouldn't get caught.

Kyre

OTE admin said...

The kicker is if Obama thought he could get away with it, especially as a Democrat, he's even more unfit for the job.

Hell, the Clintons were clean for all intents and purposes, yet the Republicans didn't care and decided to try and run them out of town. John Kerry was clean, but that didn't stop the GOP from swiftboating him. Ditto Al Gore. This time the Republicans won't have to make anything up if Obama should get the nomination.

Anonymous said...

I know you won't like hearing this, but ... Since the Chicago Cesspool is BIPARTISAN (although heavily weighted in favor of Illinois Repugs) and stretches all the way to Bush's election-fixing, attorney-purging Dept of Justice, Obama might just emerge unscathed ANYWAY, like the Clintons did in spite of Web Hubbell and BCCI.

So, imagine THIS as a not-impossible scenario for November:

(1) Obama makes it to the White House before anybody catches up to him (prosecutions are sooo slow);
(2) President Obama nominates "corruption-buster" Patrick Fitzgerald as his Attorney General (good argument to do so);
(3) So Fitzgerald, now getting to do what he TRIES to do best, shows his gratitude by managing to look the other way regarding Obama's background ... Remember, Fitz accepted SOME kind of deal that shut him up after the 1993 WTC bombings (if anyone recalls him there), so why shouldn't he now?

The big problem with trying to expose --much less prosecute-- slimeball politicians is that politicians are BY DEFINITION slimy and in a pinch they circle their wagons to cover each other's asses in a "bipartisan" way -- since any ideals they espouse are purely cosmetic, a means to an end, and greed and lust for power as common ground takes priority over any party affiliation.

Anonymous said...

I've raised it before, and it really is the critical point on this matter: used to be, anyway, that DOJ prohibited and forbade US attorneys from bringing indictments that could impact elections, in the election season. If it still is the case (let's ask Siegelman?), then nobody can indict the presumptive Democratic nominee, from this point forward.

Then, nobody can indict the president, either.

If all this is true, Obama may get a pass unless or until he gets a Republican majority House or Senate arrayed against him.

...sofla

Anonymous said...

As a former investigative reporter in Chicago, I warn you not to take Ms. Pringle's reports seriously. Her reports are beneath the level of journalism exhibited at The National Enquirer. Her "reporting" is considered a joke around the newsrooms of Chicago.

I can assure you that many of my peers in Chicago have investigated the Rezko et al dealings in Illinois in much greater depth than Ms. Pringle and have not proven the connections that she alleges. Mr. Cannon, you undercut your own credibility by spotlighting her factually inaccurate and misguided attempts at investigative reporting. Of course, I do not expect you to post my comment publicy.

Joseph Cannon said...

Normally, I would NOT publish your dreck, my bravely anonymous friend. (I reserve the right to cancel any comment that breaks one of the clearly-posted rules.) But on this occasion, you amused me.

In brief: Nice try, pal.

If you're a real reporter, I'm Clark Gable.

Remember, I've been double-checking Pringle's work. And so far, near as I can tell, not only does her stuff check out, nearly all of it is simple regurgitation of material she found in...Chicago newspapers.

I doubt that she has knocked on doors and made many original phone calls. This is compilation of previously published texts.

So, if the "newsrooms of Chicago" are laughing at her work, they are laughing at their OWN work.

And if you were a genuinely concerned reporter, you would not be writing to the likes of me. You'd be writing to the original publishers of her material instead -- a journal in New Zealand, I believe -- instead of "working" the blogs.

And if you really were a professional, you would know that good writers always "sell" their points through the use of examples and illustrations. You would have command of the facts. You would be able to cite specifics off the top of your head.

And if you were a former investigative reporter, what would stop you from naming the publication or publications that ran your material? What would stop you from naming a big story that you worked on?

Pathetic.

Just pathetic.

I just hope other bloggers don't fall for this lame attempt at spin.