• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Fitzgerald Arrested the Governor NOW

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As most of you politicos know, Patrick Fitzgerald is a US Attorney for the Department of Justice...he's the guy who prosecuting the Valerie Plame leak.

...and now he's heading the prosecution for the governor of Illinois...

I've seen questions of "why now?" when it comes to the actual arrest...

It sounds true that if he waited longer he could've found out if someone took the governor's "deal" about buying the Senator's seat and could've prosecuted THEM, too...Kill two birds with one stone, so to say...

But doing that would've made things messy, and it's always nice to prevent a crime rather than to let it knowingly happen...I've even stated so on this forum a couple of days ago...

But thinking about this some more, I've realized something that comes into play that is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

Does anyone remember this?...


Of course, Bush did NOT do that and let the attorneys keep their jobs when he became president. That came back to haunt him when he decided years later to get rid of 8 of them...and the media (which was silent about Clinton) went into an uproar and accused him of doing so for political purposes...

Now do you think Obama is going to do what Bush did and let attorneys hang around?...Or do you think he's going to drop them like a bad habit and put "his guys" in there like Clinton did?...

Of course, the answer is the latter...

And when that happens 2 things will come about...

1) Patrick Fitzgerald can kiss his job goodbye...

2) Obama could put one of his cronies in charge of the investigation...someone who could "conveniently" declare the investigation was going nowhere and stop it...("Nothing to see here folks...move along!")...

So Fitz needed to pounce BEFORE he wanted to...he probably would've liked to keep the investigation going to it's rightful conclusion, but that would've been well past Obama's inauguration date...and the subsequent firing of Fitzpatrick and close of the investigation...

By getting it out before that happened, he blocked Obama's chance of nipping this investigation in the bud...Any tapes of his advisors, his chief-of-staff, his political cronies, the governor he endorsed and campaigned for, and any other "friends" would've been thrown in the dustbin...It's also now 100% apparent that if Obama tries to fire him before the rest of this plays out, he'll be doing so to save his friends' asses...
 

Listen to Savage much?
 

Gee, and it wasn't too long ago that Bush supporters were calling for Fitzgerald's head on a plate, claiming that he was conducting an unfair witch hunt against the Bush administration. And now they want to make sure the "partisan witch hunter who unfairly targeted the Bush administration" keeps his job?

That is where your logic breaks down.
 
Article From OP said:
One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one...
Click to expand...
Oh Really...!
D. Kyle Sampson and Paul J. McNulty narrow that first two years down to a few months.

Holes and selective memory abound in this conspiracy theory...
 

Except that in this case Fitz has shown by his actions that Obama already as good as has "his guy-" in there, and there's a good reason to keep him in this office


And now all the damaging information is in Fitzgerald's hands, and he has full disgression to utilize it in some way harmful to Obama or to help him by keeping it away from any public view. By jumping the gun on this public mess, before a crime (the selling of a Senatorial seat) has been committed, he may have nullified an actual trial on that charge, especially if there is some sort of "plea agreement."


Could it be that Fitz is showing his creds as being a good soldier by actually nipping it in the bud before things had gone too far? If he acted before a crime was actually committed there will never actually be a trial, but there will be terrific pressure for Blogojevich to resign. And how would Obama have nipped it in the bud other than firing Fitz? What about by returning the favor by leaving him in his office? Fitzgerald actions have always shown he is first of all a 'partisan'; he pursued those closest to the White House until he snared Libby with a process crime; obstruction of justice for lying to a federal prosecutor. He knew by doing that, a miss was as good as a hit, bringing down Cheney's man Libby if not Bush's man Rove, would please those who count: liberals.

And Fitz has show himself capable of making inflammatory comments to the media which go well beyond the ethical constraints of a Federal Prosecutor:
In 2005 when he announced the indictment of Libby he justified it by comparing himself to an umpire who "gets sand thrown in his eyes." The umpire is "trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked" his view.
We are supposed to believe from this statement that he could not find the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name because Libby had lied. But he knew before he’d started the investigation back in January of 2004 that Richard Armitage was the leaker and nothing Mr. Libby did or did not do threw "sand in his eyes". In fact -- since there was no crime -- there was not even "a game" for the umpire to call.
Alert observers (like Chicago and Washington politicians) can see a useful pattern to his actions.

And while this was first obvious in his pursuit of Libby, might it also be obvious in his grabbing Blogo so early? And the constant between the two is Fitzgerald's "extrajudicial" commentary:

A prosecutor is permitted to "inform the public of the nature and extent" of the charges, Which means (1)the specific facts -- in the complaint or indictment. (2) He may also provide any other public-record information, (3)the status of the case, (4) the names of investigators, and request assistance. In Justice Dept. parlance this is called not going “beyond the four corners”

But he is not permitted to make the kind of inflammatory statements Mr. Fitzgerald made during his media appearance. He repeatedly characterized the conduct of Blogo as being "appalling." He gave an opinion that the governor "has taken us to a new low," and was on a "political corruption crime spree."

Additionally, Fitz has shown a willingness to not "exercise reasonable care to prevent" those working under him from making similar injudicial comments; FBI Special Agent Rob Grant volunteered that when he arrived in Illinois four years ago, he was asked by the media whether Illinois is the "most corrupt state in the United States." He then answered that four-year-old question claiming, "t's one hell of a competitor." Mr. Grant did not stop there. He revealed that the FBI agents who participated in the case were "thoroughly disgusted and revolted by what they heard."

So it appears that Obama can look at the recent career of Fitzpatrick in only these two cases and see that he has a good Chicago ally already filling that office, and that it might even be dangerous to change anything that now exists. Meanwhile, Blogo remains a "wild card" but anything he might say is being tamped down with the "Nuts and Sluts" defense: He's insane, and his wife is a "potty mouth", equally to be ignored and disdained.

...
 
cnredd said:
Does anyone remember this?...
Click to expand...

That Clinton fired the US Attorneys that were in the Bush administration? Yeah...so what?

Now do you think Obama is going to do what Bush did and let attorneys hang around?...Or do you think he's going to drop them like a bad habit and put "his guys" in there like Clinton did?...

Of course, the answer is the latter...
Click to expand...

Why do you conclude that Obama would, of course, fire them all? AFAIK, Obama has not suggested that he would fire all or keep all. I have seen some reporting that he's going to keep some on. What do you have other than a gut feeling?


I see, so you're saying that Fitz divined that Obama would fire him, so Fitz decided to file the complaint (notice the distinction between that and a grand jury proceeding resulting in an indictment and the importance of filing a complaint rather than an indictment) before he otherwise would have.

What a massive load of BS. Maybe you don't respect US Attorneys, but I do and I try not to impute illegitimate motives to them simply to make some absurd claim.


I guess the fact that the Chicago Tribune was going to publish a story regarding the Blago investigation and wiretapping had nothing to do with the seemingly premature announcement and filing, eh? I say seemingly premature because people are suggesting that since the complaint was filed before the bribe took place that the complaint was filed prematurely. I find that unpersuasive since the complaint against Blago is that he was engaged in activity to defraud the people of Illinois, not bribery.
 
JMak said:
What a massive load of BS. Maybe you don't respect US Attorneys, but I do and I try not to impute illegitimate motives to them simply to make some absurd claim.
Click to expand...

Not illegitimate, just unworthy of a US Attorney. By arresting the Governor he could stop everything that was going on its tracks. As soon as that occured everyone, including Obama, could refuse to talk about it because of honoring the legal process. Who does this help?



So since the selection activity was about to be made public, action would have to be taken quickly to keep everything under legal wraps. This could only be done by Fitzgerald acting in the case in what appears to be prematurely even before the crime was actually committed.

Everyone has a way out now. The Governor is safe because he has actually not committed any crime and he knows it, so he, being the only one who would (Fitz wouldn't) charge that Rahm Emmanuel, the president's man, was willingly talking about the senatorial selection process (which was not illegal, just "old politics"), (he, Blogo) now has a "stay out of jail free card". Fitzgerald has control of all publicly released information in the case, so that no comments by Obama can be pried loose by reporters asking questions; "Can't talk about that it's under investigation by the US prosecutor."

How will we ever know?

If Blogo makes a charge, if Fitz makes a charge, or if we see that the governor goes scott free, although he will likely be forced out of office. But only if Blogo goes to jail will I for one personally believe this wasn't a blocking action by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald now has iron clad credentials in the Democrat Party going forward. I think he is destined for a promotion in an Obama administration. (How about FBI Director sometime before the end of Obama's first four years?)

This is not a good situation for Obama, who has actually done nothing wrong other than behave in "old ways", and less than "transparently"
 

You're imputing motives to a US Atty based only on speculating pure political moitvations. You have no basis to argue that Fitz is acting only with political motives in mind. Filing the complaint did not stop "everything" in its tracks.


What selection acivity are you talking about? The Trib was going to publish a story about the wiretapping being conducted against Blago. Not the scheme to fill the Senate seat.

Everyone has a way out now.
Click to expand...

Except for Blago.


If no crime was committed then why was he arrested? Read the damned complaint before talking about it so ignorantly.

Fitzgerald has control of all publicly released information in the case, so that no comments by Obama can be pried loose by reporters asking questions; "Can't talk about that it's under investigation by the US prosecutor."
Click to expand...

No, he only controls access to the information gathered as part of his investigation. You don't seem to realize that this investigation didn't start with a basis in the selection to fill the Senate seat.


You're nuts.

This is not a good situation for Obama, who has actually done nothing wrong other than behave in "old ways", and less than "transparently"
Click to expand...

:roll:
 

Why bring Obama into this at all? Fitzgerald has already said that Obama is squeaky clean on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…