The New York Times has run a story which links Barack Obama's investments to legislation that he sponsored that had the potential to increase the value of those investments. It's a fairly damning article for a guy who has claimed to be above the rest of politicians in this regard. The article also points to the Tony Rezko scandal that Obama has been linked to. Reading the article it is clear that Obama's has been very successful in figuring out how to parlay his electoral success into money making contacts. The difference between her and Hillary Clinton is shrinking by the day.
Also of interest is that Obama refuses to answer the questions directly.
And for those who think that this is just a coincidence here are some interesting facts. AVI BioPharm has a current market cap of about 130m. Skyterra has a current market cap of about 578m. I believe the current market cap of the New York Stock Exchange is well over $10 trillion. Add in OTC, Nasdaq, etc and you can see how implausible it is that these stocks were picked out of thousands by the broker without Obama's influence. And his sponsorship of the legislation that assists them is equally implausible.
"The difference between her and Hillary Clinton"
"her" who?
Obama has a long upward climb to even approach the level of questionable investments of either Dennis Hastert related to land or the current Executive Administration top people related to oil.
the Clinton war room continues to work on Obama - was there ever a doubt?
Oh good. Another dust-up about oil. Please tell us about top administration questionable oil investments.
John
Oil Man channels George Ryan: "There was corruption in the Secretary of State's office before I was there, and there will be corruption there after I'm gone."
Obama claims to be above all of that. That's what I think Joe Biden meant by calling him "clean", by the way, that or a clean legislative history. At any rate, corruption is not relative. Just because he didn't stick the investment in his freezer, that doesn't mean he should get away with using his office for personal gain. Even if it doesn't rise to the level of crime, or even to that of other corruption, that does not excuse it.
I fail to see the scandal. His blind trust bought some stock in which his donors also had invested; Obama realized the trust wasn't as blind as he thought it would be, so he sold the stock and lost $13,000. What, exactly, did he do wrong?
Anon... probably nothing here. But it has the initial impression of unethical behavior. If it turns out to be nothing, no scandal, no "what did he say and when did he say it" publicity, then the story will quickly die off and the only people who'll care will be those opposing Obama as an example of how he may not be as ethically pure as his supporters make out.
On the other hand, if the media digs and finds that he knew about this or that, it'll hurt his chances in the primary as his idealistic supporters realize that he is more of the same, not the infallible change in Washington they were after. Right now the story just has people gossipping more than proving anything.
if you keep saying bad things about your opponent, pretty soon people start thinking your opponent is bad (?) - worked for Blago, will it work for Hillary?
The metamorphosis of The Messiah™ into Just Another Politician™ continues...
Two things. First, he worked to pass legislation that would directly affect one of the companies. Second, you can take Obama at his word, but it would be remarkable for his blind trust to buy these little known stocks. Maybe when Obama personally answers these questions from a group of inquisitive reporters we'll get a better idea of how this remarkable coincidence came to pass. My guess is that he knows he's busted and he's taking time to come up with story.
Maybe Tony Rezko is running the blind trust?
;-)
The New York Times, a liberal MSM rag, is never to be trusted and never prints the truth ... until it prints something potentially damning about a Democrat. Now I understand.
Is there something within this article that is being disputed by Obama? It seems like you feel that a conservative can not cite the NYT for information if they have a problem with something they write, even when the person being written about doesn't disagree with it.
Can we just put you down as another of the people who think that any negative news about Obama is automatically unfair?
I'm not sure where to start, so I'll simply begin by asking for some FACTS:
1. "More" Questionable Obama Ties -- I won't even address the use of the word "questionable" because it's completely subjective. But what does "more" refer to?
2. "you can take Obama at his word, but it would be remarkable for his blind trust to buy these little known stocks." Maybe, but for now you're still looking in vain for something substantial. Knowing something about an investment opportunity and acting on that knowledge doesn't automatically constitute insider trading. The Senate Ethics Committee (those guys you loved when Republicans were in charge) says Senators may own shares in companies that deal with the federal government. They can't engage in insider trading, and they should avoid conflicts of interest. Do you have any concrete evidence that Obama broke the rules?
3. "It seems like you feel that a conservative can not cite the NYT for information if they have a problem with something they write, even when the person being written about doesn't disagree with it." Whether Obama, liberals, or anyone else disagrees with it is entirely irrelevant. The NYT is the flagship of the liberal MSM, and as such is worthy only of your disdain. You disgrace yourself and your fellow conservatives by stooping to validate a single word printed therein.
4. "Can we just put you down as another of the people who think that any negative news about Obama is automatically unfair?" Can we just put you down as another of the people who think that any negative news about Obama is automatically true?
Dear and now....,
Even teachers should have access to dictionaries. Look up the work "questionable" and see if it means "illegal." Without checking myself, I assume it means "subject to question." I also assume "more" referred to Obama's questionable real estate deal. After questions are actually asked and answered it may turn out perfectly innocently. Then, if we were to follow the Democrats playlist, we could start pretending that it was a fact he was guilty.
John