Edwards OK'd Home Sale to Saudi PR Man

[DUreader]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3333963,00.html



WASHINGTON (AP) - While a member of Congress'
investigation into U.S. and Saudi intelligence
failures, presidential hopeful John Edwards agreed
to sell his home for $3.52 million to the public
relations expert hired by Saudi Arabia to counter
charges it was soft on terrorism.

Edwards, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence
Committee, said Friday he learned sometime
during the course of the 2002 transaction -
months after the initial offer was signed but
before the deal fell apart - that Michael
Petruzzello worked for Saudi Arabia.

Though the sale broke off nearly a year ago,
Edwards hasn't returned or publicly disclosed
Petruzzello's $100,000 deposit, which remains in
a real estate escrow account as the senator
decides what to do with it. Edwards recently sold
the house to another buyer for a half-million
dollars less than Petruzzello's offer.

``If I took control of the $100,000, I would
disclose it because that would be an asset of
mine and it would be necessary that it should be
disclosed. And that disclosure would include
making sure that it was appropriate because of
the legal issues associated it with it,'' Edwards
told The Associated Press.




Statement by John Edwards
on House Issue


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3333977,00.html


snip



``The Edwards put their house on the market
because they wanted to move to a more
child-friendly place for their young children. They
signed a contract to sell the house to Michael and
Wendy Petruzzello for far less than the asking
price. They didn't know the buyers and they didn't
know where they worked. They knew he was a
businessman with a letter from a bank saying he
could afford to buy the house.


snip

[ChompySnack]

1. Whaaaa?

Uggh, I expect this sort of potential and actual conflict of interest from Republicans who have no regard for ethics or the truth, but from one of our own?

This stinks. Edwards who is supposed to be investigating the Saudis now has $100K that he can bank at any time from them.

I hope anyone who was ever supporting his candidacy seriously considers this breach of trust and moves their support over to another worthy candidate.

[leetrisck]

2. Bologna!

The Saudi's are friends, the Saudi's are friends! And the money is green and the man is selling a house, etc., etc. How on earth is this a conflict of interest - if I was the real estate agent, I'd sure want my share of the money.

[AP]

4. Escrow: not in your control. Not selling house to someone becuase of their

nationality: on the verge of being unconstitutional.

[AP]

6. Re-read it. This guy isn't a Saudi.

He was hired by the Saudis.

Last time I checked, you don't ask a potential buyer for a list of all his business contacts when you sell your house.

[AP]

3. The first thing this makes me think of: Rehnquist's restrictive covenant

Didn't Rehnquist own a house with a restrictive covenant -- it couldn't be sold to a black person?

[leetrisck]

5. Sure he did

and it was "just no big deal"

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. That's a real stretch in regards to Edwards, don't you think?

What the heck does a potential deal to sell a house have to do with a restrictive clause in a covenant?

Junior had one on the house he sold in Houston...claimed he knew nothing about it and blamed it on his lawyer. Don't know about Rehnquist, but wouldn't be in the least surprised.

[AP]

9. I thought the implication was that Edwards shouldn't be selling a house

to anyone with connection to Saudis.

After reading the story, I see that that isn't the implication.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. The Edwards haters are very confused

They can't decide if he's insignificant or Satan himself. If pressed, they'll probably say both, plus that he doesn't really exist.

I especially liked the way CNN crowed that Ashton Kutcher stood him up at a fundraiser, repeating it in their teasers, and when finally delivering the story pointed out that Kutcher was hosting the event (held at Dennis Hopper's) but was unfortunately caught out of town, unable to get into L.A. because of airline delays due to the fires.

This guy just can't get a break.

[AP]

8. OHHH. I get it. The allegation is that this is a sham sale.

The guy signed a contract. Put the money in escrow. Backed out of the sale. He loses his money because he broke the contract and Edwards ended up selling the house for less.

The wingers will say it's a sham sale designed to give Edwards 100K under the table.

I think they're going to need a little more evidence. It certainly isn't a benefit for Edwards if he's got this house on the market, it's tied up in a sale that falls through and he ends up lossing money becaue real estate prices are falling.

The house was unoccupied for, like a year in a market it which the high end values are depreciating. It would have been a stupid gamble if you were trying to accept a bribe.

This is a little bit of a stretch, if you ask me.

[RowWellandLive]

11. This is so pathetic!

Since when are people supposed to scrutinize the buyers of their homes? Is it mow OK, in fact expected that one discriminate who they sell to based on nationality or business dealings? Give me a break!!

[RowWellandLive]

12. Oops!!

Note to self: read article first, then post :spank:

I still think it's not much of an issue but it does make a little more sense.

[E_Zapata]

13. This is what should be deduced:

If Edwards is holding onto the PR guy's $100K that was in escrow - and the deal fell through, then it was the buyer who made the deal fall through and Sen. Edwards is no doubt trying to TAKE that $100K...as collateral for having to sell the house for less.

Basically.....just your average yard dog attorney trying to get something for nothing.

This is the first negative thing I have seen about edwards, and i ahve to say to him: you sold your god damned house, get over the lost deal.

Whatever county he is in......you will probably find a lawsuit by the PR guy against Edwards to return the $100K. And in that lawsuit, we can see how greedy this man may very well be.

Well, I guess we can be assured that if Edwards wins the nom (doubtful), he won't be signing any tort reform bills. Oh noooooo, not when we gotta a prez who takes advantage of the law just because it's there.

---call me over=speculative but the ONLY way this could be public record is IF there is a lawsuit over the $100K. ....... unless someone else can explain it. Kind of like instant karma, cause I bet that $100K wasn't worth a story like this popping up for Edwards right now.

[AP]

15. I think the issue is that Edwards had to sell the house for MUCH less

after the deal fell through and he's allowed to retain the 100K as damages. The PR guy broke the sale contract is liable for the damages. The 100K prbably isn't even the full damages, but the contract probably said that the seller keeps the escrow amount if the buyer breaches and damages meet or exceed the amount in escrow, and is entiteld to no further damages.

Edwards kept the 100K in escrow for so long because it took him a long time to sell the house.

That's my guess.

[T Bone]

14. Why is the Guardian all over this ?

Are they doing this to show how the right wing will pick this up and diseminate it as opposed to all the Saudi/bin Laden/Bush family/bisiness connection stories the American press has/will ignore or bury? :shrug:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. I dunno'.....good question..... but - a smear is a smear

truth is secondary to the innuendo. We should talk about Bush's forgetting to file SEC documents. In fact, were I Edwards I would cite that as an example of absolution for a supposedly devious act.