The April 3, 2004, gathering for Auchi took place at Rezko's mansion in Wilmette, with about 100 people attending, Levine testified.
"Mr. and Mrs. Obama were there, were they not?" Rezko's lawyer, Joseph Duffy, asked. "Yes, sir," Levine said.
Later Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said: "As he has said previously, Senator Obama does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion, and this includes any event that may have been held for Mr. Auchi. Senator and Mrs. Obama have no recollection of attending any such event."
But according to two sources familiar with the gathering, the Obamas attended the Wilmette reception, which came less than a month after Obama's Democratic primary win for his U.S. Senate seat. Rezko had been a key fund-raiser for Obama, who has since given to charity nearly $160,000 in Rezko-linked contributions.
If Obama has nothing to hide about his relationship with Rezko and Auchi, why would he deny ever meeting Auchi when the Sun-Times was so easily able to find two others persons who could corroborate government witness Stuart Levine's account which placed him at the event with Auchi? What I find interesting is that every time Obama's name has been brought up during this trial it has been done so by Rezko's attorney and not the government attorneys. Why? Could Rezko's attorney be doing that as part of an effort at jury nullification? Does he believe some jurors would acquit Rezko if they thought convicting him might spell trouble for Obama on down the road. It's an interesting question to ponder.