OK here is a possible explanation for Obama saying as little as possible about Rezko so far....

[Blackhatjack]

Rezko has to decide by FEB 1, 2008, whether to plead guilty to the charges to get the benefit of pleading guilty at an early stage in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

So Rezko is weighing his options whether to go to trial FEb 25 or cooperate for a more lenient sentence. If he cooperates he will have to give prosecutors 'useful information' that can be used to make the case against others(which do not have to be involved in the same transactions he is pleading to). It would likely require him to testify against them.

So if you are Rezko, weighing your options, one of the considerations is going to be who to give up and what information to disclose about them. However, the bigger the fish given up, the more lenient the sentence is likely to be.

So far Obama has said very little negative about Rezko, and almost nothing about their dealings.

Maybe Obama has remained basically mum on Rezko until he learns what decision Rezko has made and what he will say about him.

THis is just a possible reason for the admittedly ineptness of the Obama Campaign responses to the Rezko problem so far.

[Kittycat]

1. Obama isn't involved, it's someone from Blago's admin.

[Blackhatjack]

5. Defendants give up names and info on people 'not involved' every day to get a more lenient sentence

That is why the prosecution in a criminal case is required to disclose to defense counsel any 'plea agreements, promises, considerations and/or enticements' that have been made to a witness who might appear at a trial, or who gave evidence to be used at a trial.

They don't have to be involved in the activities which form the basis for the charges pending against the defendant.

In fact, this is the Standard Operating Procedure for breaking down members of organized crime. They get charged for something unrelated(ie. drug possession) and they 'cut a deal' by giving up a higher up for activities which nothing to do with the charges pending against them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. IOW, you're saying that if Obama disses Rezak, then Rezak will lie

to undercut Obama. By the time the truth comes out, the election will be over.

[Blackhatjack]

7. While lying is a possibility, it would not likely be the choice regarding Obama...

... because every plea agreement that a defendant enters into has an absolute condition that the defendant tell all he knows and not lie about anything. If he signs the agreement and subsequently lies, the deal is off and he can be fully prosecuted on the original charges and everything he has told them to that point can be used against him.

I think the chance Rezko would lie is small. The chance Rezko might not tell everything he knows about an ancillary matter is greater(that he might not disclose all he knows about Obama in a totally unrelated matter).

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. This, after Fitzpatrick has said that there is absolutely no indication

that Obama has any involvement whatsoever.

(sigh)

[Blackhatjack]

9. I am only speaking from experience here ...

It was always a concern when a prosecution witness from 'left field' showed up on the witness list.

[Diane R]

2. Smear politics at it's worst.

[DJ13]

3. Clinton strategy at its lowest point

Smear, slime, innuendo, deflect, obfuscate, lie, but win and claim it was a great victory.

[pampango]

4. It's not just for rovian republicans anymore.

:)