He can't say that he knew more, even if he did, because that gets Obama in a heap of trouble.  If he says he didn't know, and Rezko says he did, there's that trouble again.

As for the sale of the house, I think there are all kinds of aspects to it which do not, at this point, appear to be illegal, but certainly don't smell very good, and if judgment is going to be an issue in this campaign, I think it's legitimate to get answers to the questions now.

I think the problem for Obama is that Rezko does not appear to have ever done much of anything out of the goodness of his heart; looking at the allegations in this case, one has to wonder why Obama, who claims the high ground on judgment, and was and is seeking to climb the political ladder on a national stage, sought out the involvement of a man whose business practices left enough to be desired to the point where, at the time of the house purchase, he was known to be under federal investigation.  Obama can call it boneheaded, but to assume that doing so should end the questions is either naive or arrogant; he has still failed to be transparent on that particular deal.

There has to be a thesis paper somewhere talking about manifest destiny and the American passion for land ownership and land-related debates.

From the Chicago Tribune:

U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve, who is presiding over Rezko's trial, told prosecutors they could introduce evidence to support allegations that Rezko used straw men to make political contributions on his behalf.

In her ruling, St. Eve said the government contends that Rezko directed business associates Joseph Aramanda and Elie Maloof to make contributions to an unnamed political candidate in late 2003 and 2004 because Rezko had already contributed the maximum legal amount.

The only candidate Maloof and Aramanda contributed to during that time frame was Obama, then running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. Maloof and Aramanda each gave $10,000 to Obama's campaign.

....Aramanda is a Glenview businessman whose son received a coveted summer internship in Obama's Capitol Hill office in 2005.

The judge's ruling is here. (pdf). It outlines the Government's allegation that the money Amaranda contributed came from an illegal finders' fee:

The government has moved to admit evidence that Rezko used other individuals to make politicalcontributions. As noted above, Glencoe Capital paid a $375,000 fee to Sheldon Pekin for the TRS investment in Glencoe. A chunk of that fee went to Aramanda, and Rezko allegedly directed Aramanda to provide the money to others. The government contends that Aramanda used some of it - at Rezko's direction - to make a political contribution because Rezko had already donated the maximum amount allowed by law and he could not make the contribution himself. In order to establish Rezko's identity as the person behind
this payment and to establish his knowledge of the contribution and control over the money, the government seeks to introduce evidence that just months before Rezko directed Aramanda to make the political contribution, Rezko directed Elie Maloof to donate for the same reason.

This evidence is admissible pursuant to Rule 404(b) because it is evidence of Rezko's identity as the person behind the payment from the charged conduct, and it is relevant to his knowledge of, and control over, the payment from the charged Glencoe Capital finder's fee. Defendant's attack on the credibility of the witnesses who will testify regarding it is an issue for the jury. See Green, 258 F.3d at 694. ....It is also direct evidence of the allegation in the Indictment that "Rezko raised significant amounts of money
for certain Illinois politicians." (R. 96-1, Indictment ¶ 1i).

In addition, Rezko allegedly previously directed Aramanda and Maloof to make other political contributions. For the same reasons, this evidence is admissible.

It's amusing to see you guys contort yourselves explaining why Hillary shouldn't be obliged to release her tax returns yet you think that Obama should continually answer the same questions regarding Rezko.

In order to divide the lot, which the doctor purchased as one entity, he would have to:

• Hire an approved architect and general contractor, who had been involved in renovations and sub-divisions in Kenwood previously

• Have the lots surveyed and new plot plans drawn

• Re-start the Landmark Commission permit approval process

• Hold a public hearing (required).

This is what interests me:

Pages 51 and 52 of the Landmark ordinances show how many proofs and other forms of extensive documentation are required in order to subdivide the land. Can any rational person believe the doctor would have been willing to go along with having his property sub-divided, and all the work and time involved, without compensation and assistance? Who paid for this?

With Michelle sitting on the Landmarks board, Commission approval wasn't expected to be an issue, even though I have not located notice of the Public Hearing from any of the involved boards. From there it would go to the City Planning Board and the Zoning Boards, which also require public hearings. Each of these steps average between 6 weeks and 3 months to complete.

The doctor's property was located in what Chicago Zoning Terms refer to as Residential Single zone 1, or RS1. This means the house the Obamas bought required 6,250 sq. ft of area. Even if it had the designation lowered to RS2, it still would have required 5,000 square feet, as seen on page 5 of Chicago's zoning ordinances. Starting on page 8, the ordinances specify setbacks and how much space must be available on each side of a building. The open space on the building's sides normally conform to Fire Regulations, so that equipment can access all portions of a building during crises.

Public Records at the Chicago Commission on Landmarks, the Chicago Planning Department and Chicago Zoning Boards would show the exact dates of permits, hearings and approvals. Michelle was so confident she listed the Obamas' condo, which was located on the first floor of a Hyde Park Brownstone. In October 2004, Michelle expressed surprise to a Chicago interviewer that the Condo had sold so quickly, which meant they either had to put off a closing date or write in a lease agreement for a specified amount of time in their Condo purchase contract.

Nothing wrong there. If you have an allegation, include a link to the source (in html format, using the link button at the top of your comment box.)