The Fitzgerald factor
posted at 10:55 am on November 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Chicago Tribune wants assurances that Barack Obama will keep at least one of his campaign promises. Patrick Fitzgerald, as a political appointee, serves as US Attorney only as long as it pleases the President. Will Obama replace Fitzgerald just as his investigation into the Chicago Machine begins to put some of the President-elect’s political allies in his crosshairs?
Today one unstoppable force of nature threatens the culture of sleaze and its insider financial deals, its illegal patronage hiring, and its pay-to-play contracts for cronies: Since his arrival from New York in 2001, U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald has demonstrated the energy and integrity that, in time, could liberate Illinoisans from indentured servitude to criminals in government.
President-elect Barack Obama has said he’ll keep Fitzgerald in the job, and we trust he’ll keep his word. But Fitzgerald, who serves at the president’s pleasure, has powerful enemies. They know that as his list of cooperating witnesses lengthens—convicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko may be joining that club—so does his list of potential targets. Those with reason to fear Fitzgerald’s breath on their necks would love to see him dumped—or promoted high into Justice Department oblivion—when Obama takes office. …
Mr. President-elect, please tell Patrick Fitzgerald that his job future is as secure as yours. And invite Illinois officials to keep this independent and skilled prosecutor at bay not by angling to remove him, but by following the law.
This could act as a canary-in-the-coal mine bellwether for the incoming Obama administration. If Obama replaces Fitzgerald, either by demanding his resignation or kicking him upstairs to a powerless post, he will signal that he intends to protect his political base in Chicago above all else. If he keeps Fitzgerald on the job and supports him with a pro-reform AG at Justice, it will send a powerful message to the Daleys and Strogers that business as usual may come to an end.
Actually, I would be surprised to see him replace Fitzgerald, for two reasons. First, Fitzgerald earned a great deal of respect on the Left for his pursuit of the ridiculous investigation into the Wilson/Plame leak and his subsequent prosecution of Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald is not seen as a partisan, and in fact exemplifies the non-partisan ideal of the DoJ.
Second, and more importantly, Obama no longer needs the Chicago Machine. Getting elected to the Presidency freed him from his need to maintain connections to the Daleys and the Strogers. It would be almost impossible for Obama to lose Illinois in 2012 even if Daley campaigned against him. Freed from the need to stroking Daley to win elections, he can build a reputation for refom by actually taking action for the first time in his career to reform anything.
If Obama cleans up Chicago — and I mean really cleans up Chicago — by keeping Fitzgerald on the job, he will have accomplished something truly significant. There are no downsides for him in doing so, and tremendous upsides for both himself and the Democratic Party outside of Illinois. Either way, how Obama handles Fitzgerald will be an early indicator as to whether Obama really intends to pursue reform.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
WWAPD? What Will the American Putin Do?
Gorelick in, Fitzgerald out. Lock down the media and the judicial system first. Issue hundreds of exec orders then use the Obama Youth to control the legislative branch. Done and done.
econavenger on November 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Except he needs them to keep quiet. Rezko alone could be a great danger to Obama, and who knows what other investigative targets would be willing to reveal to get a deal?
Think about it, Ed. Obama rose through the Chicago machine by at least tolerating corruption. I can’t see how he could get as far as he had without their being some impeachment-worthy dirt hiding under the carpet.
I’ll be surprised if Fitzgerald isn’t promoted to a meaningless position.
irishspy on November 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM
She wasnt covert under the law Fitzgerald was enforcing, hence no one was charged with outing her.
How long are you clowns going to cling to this one?
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
She had stopped being a covert agent over a decade earlier.
MarkTheGreat on November 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Others probably have said this but Obama is probably dirty or at least was in a position to be an accessory. He can’t have this go forward because his name is going to come up even if he didn’t personally do anything illegal.
Obama could easily kick Fitzgerald upstairs because he actually deserves a high profile position in the Justice Department. I think Fitzgerald will be gone from Chicago.
jerryofva on November 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM
and
Quit lying about events and being a shameful troll. The person that leaked about Plame being CIA was Richard Armitage, and he was never prosecuted for it.
Therefore, a ridiculous investigation.
Cheney and Libby were never proved to have leaked anything, therefore your “reality” is actually your own “fantasy.” The claim that the Bush administration outed Plame is a black-hearted lie whose only real purpose was to smear the Bush administration.
Furthermore, Plame had not been covert for years, and the real liars in this case, as in most of the garbage thrown at the Bush administration, were the people making the charges.
Incidentally, it was Wilson who lied. He lied about his trip, about who arranged for him to go, about what he found, about Cheney leaking his wife’s name as some sort of retribution, and about Bush lying in his State of the Union address.
Frankly, the true story of Joseph Wilson should have you too embarrassed to mention his name in public. If you had any sense of shame.
Troll.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Then please explain why Armitage was not prosecuted?
Romeo13 on November 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Agreed.. he’ll likely get kicked upstairs.
Illinidiva on November 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
if you haven’t guess it…Plame WAS NOT COVERT…or they would have been prosecuted…that they were not informs us that PLAME WAS NOT COVERT.
got it?? sigh.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
MarkTheGreat on November 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Please educate yourselves.
She was covert under the law Fitzgerald was enforcing but, in part because of Libby’s obstruction, he was not able to prove that Armitage, Libby or Rove knew she was covert when they leaked her ID — a necessary component to a prosecution under the law.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Shipley:
Plame had not been a covert agent since the year after she left her training. You see the Soviets recruited someone on the training staff to pass the names of all the graduates. You can start looking on the web for the info. I don’t Plame but I a good friends with several of her classmates. She was not covert because every hostile intel service connected with the KGB/FSB knew who she was.
jerryofva on November 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
No, don’t got it. She was covert. See my above post.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I just hope he doesn’t have some terrible “accident” - given the cronies that are associated with all of the investigations - capiche?
tru2tx on November 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
This is what I like about HA. Some posters know about alot of different topics, and some such MarkThe Great in this instance, alot about the particular topic at hand. It makes it so hard for trolls with talking points to rile the troops.
thomasaur on November 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
obviously not. Fitz didn’t charge them with breaking the law about covert agents because she wasn’t covert. it wasn’t libby’s fault…you’re delusional.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Rezko, et al can simply be pardoned to keep them quiet; I doubt Obama wants to do anything that blatant quite yet, but who knows? As president, he may get a bit frisky and we know he’s arrogant.
a capella on November 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM
thomasaur on November 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I love it, some guy spouts off some talking point he once heard without providing any proof to back it up and he suddenly is a guy who knows a lot about a particular topic at hand.
meanwhile, I provide declassified court documents that show Plame’s status at the time of the leaks was covert and that the CIA was taking affirmative actions to keep her relationship with the agency secret, but I’m just “making stuff up.”
You really do have to love HotAir.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM
victoria Toensing who WROTE THE LAW testified before congress that plame was not covert. sigh.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Back on topic: They can still get rid of Patrick Fitzgerald by digging up dirt on him first. But I’m betting that Romeo13 pegged it: they’ll fire all the US Attorneys, then appoint just the ones they can control.
After all, there will be other things to be swept under the rug too.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM
link
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
The only thing Dear Leader needs from Chicago is quiet. I am sure they will find a way to do this. The pipeline from Chicago to D.C. will be patent and free flowing.
bloggless on November 10, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Shipley:
Libby had nothing to do with Armitage. Fitzgerald knew all about Armitage prior to setting his sights on Libby. Fitzgerald went after Libby because he brokered the Mark Rich Clinton pardon deal in 2000. Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in the case and he went after Libby in revenge
jerryofva on November 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
right4life:
Fitzgerald at this press conference explaining Libby’s perjury charges said the following:
Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
He was later able to back up this claim by releasing this.
In that press conference, he went on to explain that he didn’t charge anyone with the crime of outing Plame because he could not prove they knew Plame was covert when they outed her — which, by law, is necessary to bring a conviction.
Here’s the press conference.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Absolute lie, Shipley.
Rove ADMITTED he said her name himself.
So why wasn’t he charged?
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Read the unclassified CIA summary of Plame’s employment status. It shows her status was classified and that she had traveled overseas seven times since 2002 (within the five years the law stipulates).
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Read
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
PS- So did Armitage. He told Bob Woodward.
Look up the identity protection act Fitzgerald was prosecuting. Plame did not fit the criteria of a protected agent UNDER THE LAW, period.
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Again, for those avoiding it, here’s the CIA summary of Plame’s employment status:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Yes she did. It’s all in the link I just posted.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM
‘
Dont have to. She wasnt covert UNDER THE LAW. Of course the CIA is going to come to her defense. But Fitzgerald is a prosecutor, he prosecutes THE LAW.
I can’t believe you guys are still clinging to this fantasy.
No one was prosecuted under the protection act BECAUSE PLAME WASNT LEGALLY PROTECTED.
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Dont have to. She wasnt covert UNDER THE LAW.
Ah, yes, the old “ignore the evidence” because I know I’m right angle.
No one was prosecuted under the protection act BECAUSE PLAME WASNT LEGALLY PROTECTED.
She was legally protected. She wasn’t prosecuted because Fitzgerald could not prove that the three men who leaked her ID to the press knew she was a covert agent when they did so. The law states a person must KNOWINGLY out the agent. In large part because of Libby’s obstruction, Fitzgerald could not prove this. That’s why no one was prosecuted.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Armitage never told Fitzgerald he had told Woodward about Plame during the investigation. Woodward told Fitzgerald about that AFTER Fitzgerald charged Libby and said he was the first in a series of leakers.
Colin Powell knew Armitage was Novak’s source, and didn’t tell the President. The two men made a choice not to tell Bush so they wouldn’t get blamed. Yet Obama welcomes Colin Powell with open arms.
Now, how does Blagojevich choosing Obama’s successor tie inot this whole Fitzgerald thing, do we think. The man is teetering on the edge of indictment, Obama has the power to fire or keep his prosecutor, and Blag is going to fill Obama’s Senate seat. It’s odd and cozy.
MayBee on November 10, 2008 at 12:57 PM
then he should have PROSECUTED him for breaking the law. but he didn’t.
he’s blowing smoke, just like you are.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Here is something you need to be told about you and your liberal ilk….
You have been lying about Bush for 8 years and now you will lie about Obama for the next 4. You moonbats can’t change the basic personality disorder that is your core makeup.
You $hitbags are flawed to your core. It wont matter who is elected, you will always lie to yourselves to create a reality that fits your meme.
Obama is a socialist and therefore, a megalomaniac. The “Office of the President elect”? A national holiday? The One? The Messiah?
These are all names that he joyfully accepts as his own.
A you brain dead morons think criticizing that is the same as the vile crap you have done over the last 8 years.
csdeven on November 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
right4life,
Are you willfully ignoring my explanation for why he didn’t prosecute any one for leaking her name. AGAIN:
She wasn’t prosecuted because Fitzgerald could not prove that the three men who leaked her ID to the press knew she was a covert agent when they did so. The law states a person must KNOWINGLY out the agent. In large part because of Libby’s obstruction, Fitzgerald could not prove this. That’s why no one was prosecuted.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM
its BS. the CIA didn’t go after ANYONE for breaking the law…because NO LAW WAS BROKEN.
how hard is this??
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM
you know Novack talked to the CIA before he released her name…they had no objection…because SHE WAS NOT COVERT.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM
You guys are so far gone that you won’t even take the CIA declassified summary of Plame’s employment history with the agency as proof that she was covert at the time of the leak.
You guys are either in major denial, extremely dumb or can’t bring yourself to admit you are wrong.
The evidence is there and clear. Plame traveled overseas seven time after 2002 as a NOC agent (the deepest cover one can have). The CIA was taking affirmative steps to conceal her relationship with the agency. It’s all there. She was covert at the time of the leak, and according to the standards set by the law Fitzgerald was acting on.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM
they had no objection
Yes they did. The guy Novak talked to at the CIA said he tried to tell Novak as strongly as he could without revealing Plame’s relationship with the CIA that he should not print her name.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years.
Yes, and Toensing would have been right if in fact Plame had NOT been stationed overseas over the past five years. But the CIA summary of her employment history shows that she was.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM
you’re a typical democRAT, unable to see the truth.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM
more BS. you don’t think she looked in to that huh?? please.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM
but fitzgerald did NOT PROSECUTE ANYONE BY THAT LAW….DUHHHHHH
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM
its BS. the CIA didn’t go after ANYONE for breaking the law…because NO LAW WAS BROKEN.
The CIA did go after those who leaked Plame’s name. They requested an investigation into the matter with this letter.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM
and don’t give the BS that fitzy would have if not for liddy..please.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM
more BS. you don’t think she looked in to that huh?? please.
She did not have access to Plame’s employment history. It was classified until this summary was released last year.
She was the one spouting BS because she didn’t know if Plame met the criteria of the law she helped write.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA’s general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:10 PM
but fitzgerald did NOT PROSECUTE ANYONE BY THAT LAW….DUHHHHHH
Again, for the reading impaired, he did not prosecute because he could not prove the men who leaked her name KNOWINGLY outed her.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM
more BS and lies.
fitzy didn’t prosecute ANYONE based on breaking that law, because THE LAW WAS NOT BROKEN.
if it was he would have prosecuted them based upon the law….duhhhhhh
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Back to reality, Shipley:
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Why on Earth can’t they at least prosecute Armitage and Wilson for outing her based on this alone?
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM
its called CYA….why couldn’t he?? hmmm?? because she was in WHO’s WHO….like all good covert agents…sigh..duhhhhh
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA’s general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
That’s because Novak could not have broken the law since he did not have classified clearance. Only those who have access to classified information, then reveal that information can be prosecuted under the law.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM
The Associated Press is reporting that Joe Wilson himself, in an interview on CNN, confirms that Valery Plame was not a covert agent at the time of Robert Novak’s article mentioning her name.
AP
Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said.
link
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Because you have to prove that Armitage knew Plame was a covert agent to prosecute him. How hard is this for you to understand.
I’ve laid all the evidence out. If you guys are too dishonest or too dense to see the truth, I can’t do anything more.
Tom_Shipley on November 10, 2008 at 1:15 PM
HE JUST SAID WILSON TOLD HIM!!!!!!!!!!!
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM
guess you didn’t read it…
general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Wilson was not prevented by the CIA from writing his Op-Ed for The New York Times, an article that not only criticized the Administration, but also detailed his mission and findings.
* When columnist Novak contacted the CIA to verify that Plame worked for the agency, he says that the Agency not only verified her employment but also failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name.
* The CIA’s usual procedure when it is concerned that publishing a fact would endanger a covert agent is to have a high ranking official, usually the Director, contact the journalist and ask that information not be published.
* The CIA did not prohibit Plame from making political contributions under the name “Wilson, Valerie E.,” facts that are publicly available at the FEC.
link
right4life on November 10, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Wrong wrong wrong.
Libby had nothing to do with Armitage. Armitage told Woodward about Plame entirely separately from anything Libby did, and before Libby did.
Armitage did not tell Fitzgerald he had told Woodward. It was after Fitzgerald charged Libby with obstruction that Woodward went to Fitzgerald to tell him about Armitage.
Libby did not prevent Fitzgerald from investigating Armitage, who Fitzgerald knew was Novak’s source. Fitzgerald simply chose *not* to investigate Armitage.
The fun part is that Powell knew about Armitage. And didn’t tell Bush. And Obama will welcome Powell into his White House.
MayBee on November 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I think we need to stop arguing with Shipley. His position is obvious. If a leak helps hurts Bush it is patriotic. If the leak helps Bush then off with his head.
You can bet that Shipley will be screaming for blood the moment someone at CIA leaks damaging information about Obama to the press.
jerryofva on November 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM
If Obama in any way fires Fitzgerald it will be comparable to Nixon firing Cox.
MB4 on November 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Fitzgerald will be dismissed. Dems gotta get revenge for the eight U.S. attorneys dismissed. That’s my take.
Christien on November 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM
<I think we need to stop arguing with Shipley. His position is obvious. If a leak helps hurts Bush it is patriotic. If the leak helps Bush then off with his head.
You can bet that Shipley will be screaming for blood the moment someone at CIA leaks damaging information about Obama to the press.
jerryofva on November 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM
blockquote>
thomasaur on November 10, 2008 at 1:37 PM
I’m guessing Fitzgerald stays. He showed an amazing lack of curiosity when it came to Armitage and Fleisher, and Obama can use a guy like that in Chicago.
MayBee on November 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I think thats a little over the top. Obama’s not accused of anything.
But boy would it be a mistake.
Chuck Schick on November 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Oops didn’t add comment.
Arguing with Shipley is like playing kick the can. If we don’t kick the can it stops it’s clattering, and I am tired of the clattering.
thomasaur on November 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Agreed. The main issues here are (1) Did obama break the law with the Rezko-obama land deal (2) will fitz go after the crooked chicago thugocracy (3) Will obama get rid of fitz.
bullseye on November 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
The only flaw in your logic is the idea that Fitzgerald is pursuing Obama’s corrupt friends with all the zeal that grilled Libby about months-old conversations that were irrelevant since he already knew the source. I’d suggest that the Plame witch hunt shows that Fitzgerald is a left-leaning partisan with zero objectivity. For that reason alone he is likely to be rewarded when the new regime siezes power in January.
highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Sarge, really? You really think Mike Madigan is going to hold off his outrageously ambitious leftist daughter from running now?
Ohhh!
Finally - a view of Fitzy that I can relate to. I don’t see what this douche has done about corruption in Illinois at all; it’s all small potatoes and window dressing to me.
I think he’s a fraud, and he throws up some pawns, while keeping the lid on the obvious stuff. Cook County, Blagojevich, Daley - they are all Scot-Free so far.
He puts Obama’s fundraiser in jail, but we can’t even get a news story about Obama in the Trib? We have all these stories about Baloneyvich, but nothing? The crooks who run the County? I think Fitz is a bust and a farce.
Jaibones on November 10, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Bing!
Jaibones on November 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Good for the Chicago Trib.
When John Kass, Chicago Tribune, interviewed Obama and McCain, both agreed to keep Fitzgerald on after the election.
Mitt Romney was the only one who said he would NOT keep Fitzgerald on. This was during the primary.
Captain America on November 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Incidentally, Rahm Emanuel has reasons to get rid of Fitgerald too.
Captain America on November 10, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I’m eagerly awaiting the countless hand ringing congressional hearings when Obama fires one U.S. attorney. Oh wait, the left only complains when Republican Presidents exercise their power. How silly of me.
Spitfire9 on November 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
to those talking to Tom Shiply
Pearls before swine.
He will never listen..
not even with a well place blow to the head, he will not listen..
I’ve tried with other trolls.. believe you me..
DaveC on November 10, 2008 at 3:09 PM
No proof in court, as previously mentioned.
Plame was not undercover, nor had she been for several years.
It was still irresponsible (cover legends, when blown, can have far-reaching effects), but it was not illegal according to statute.
Thus there were no convictions, and Cheney was not frog-marched from the Capitol. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
As for the defensibility of this — national politics is hardball. Weenies need not apply. Look to your man Obama for a demo. He’s not half bad at it.
Prufrock on November 10, 2008 at 3:13 PM
With Mayor Daleys brother on Obamas transition team, I think fitz is toast. I live here in Chicago, They are all in the same cabal. They, Obama, Rahm, Daley and the rest are all corrupt in varying degrees. To get an idea how things work here is to pick up the book “When corruption was king” by Robert Cooley. Gives a good look at the inner workings of Chicago politics, the outfit, and corruption.
cpddet on November 10, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I lived in Chicago 30 years ago, and grew up in Springfield.
It’s been real interesting to me to watch the rest of America get wised up about Chicago politics by some folks who see it first hand - hats off to cpddet, et al. Even the execrable Bill Clinton seemed put of by “Chicago thugs.”
I wonder what the Chi guys think about the expressed notion that “Obama doesn’t need the Chicago machine anymore”? I doubt that’s a club you can just walk away from…
warbaby on November 10, 2008 at 4:39 PM
He’ll be putting himself in prison
ConservativePartyNow on November 10, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Yeah, it’s like trying to quit the mafia or a street gang once you’ve got the tatoos.
Big John on November 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I said earlier that I’d support Obama if he didn’t do something screwy.
Replacing Fitzgerald would count as something screwy. Coming from Illinois, many of us are praying that he gets this right. I can only hope he stays in his position.
Frankly, I’ll be lucky if he isn’t wearing concrete shoes come February at the bottom of some lake.
Chaz706 on November 10, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]