None of these articles allege that there was anything dubious or shady about rthge deal. If you would like to allege the contrary, please be specific. What EXACTLY are you alleging was unethical, illegal or otherwise “shady” about the deal. Please support your answer with linkable cites.
You would have gotten to the false “shady land deal” accusations eventually. I was responding preemptively.
Please re-read the posts in this thread, particularly the second post and avoid this behavior in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
So here’s what you’ve got. Obama once paid a fair market value for a small piece of land and he once offered a month long internship to a guy who was related to a guy who knew Rezko. The internship did not benefit Rezko.
That makes me very optimistic about November.
I had no idea that such a rule had been adopted. I guess I’m not very observant.
You already have the links.
Shady as in questionable.
Dubious: open to doubt or suspicion.
Obama himself agrees:
“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor,” Obama — a likely presidential candidate — told the Sun-Times in November.
You’re making accusations but you’re not backing them up. None of your linked articles allege anything illegal or unethical on Obama’s part. You seem to be falling back on the fact that Obama said he “made a mistake,” but he was talking about a political mistake, nt a legal one. He did not say that he had done anything unethical.
I’ll ask one more time, what specifically do you believe Obama did which was “shady” or “dubious?” Your cites say no such thing and Obama says no such thing.
There’s a difference between admitting you’ve violated the “appearance of impropriety” standard and admitting that you’ve actually done something unethical. Frankly, after 7 years of a Bush White House and 5 years of Republican majority in Congress, it’s refreshing to hear a high-level government figure even pay lip service to the “Caesar’s wife” standard…
And for the last time, I will repeat myself, the land deal was dubious in that it was open to doubt or suspicion.
And that’s just begging the question, not answering it.
In what way was it open to doubt or suspicion?
Re-read Obama’s quote above. That is the answer to your question.
Having said that, you win the thread.
:dubious: You’re not still here, are you?