Patrick Fitzgerald: A Skeptical View

[McCamy Taylor]

The indictment of Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois stinks. From the moment that federal prosecutor and darling of the left Patrick Fitzgerald presented his charges as if he were the impresario of a three ring media circus, something (many things) about this case has struck me as off .

I am going to attempt the near impossible----a logical discussion of a case which involves a man who has become a folk hero for many Democrats.

First, does Fitzgerald deserve his heroic status? Look at the results of the Plame case, which made his name and fortune. The matter was a serious one. A CIA agent who specialized in the proliferation of nuclear weapons was deliberately outed as payback, because her husband questioned the case for going to war with Iraq. The act was both petty revenge and an attempt to silence other administration critics. It caused the deaths of CIA contacts, it put CIA agents (including Ms. Plame) in danger and it blew CIA cover operations, setting back the agency’s work. It was an act of treason. We all know from the evidence in the case that Dick Cheney masterminded the outing, and that Karl Rove participated in the scheme and that White House employees helped to scrub e-mails as part of a cover up. Bush himself has claimed that he ordered the outing. And yet, what are the results of the long investigation? Journalists were threatened with jail or were jailed. And Scooter Libby was allowed to fall on his sword---to the general acclaim of the nation’s press and conservative community---before receiving an immediate pardon from his unnamed co-conspirator, George W. Bush. Fitz delivered a public tongue lashing to the people whom he claimed that he could not touch---oh, that must have hurt! For this, we proclaimed him the equivalent of the courageous prosecutor in Costa-Gravas’s film Z.

How many people on the left looked at the events which unfolded during the Plame investigation and Libby prosecution and considered another option? Fitz has a reputation as an attorney who is skillful with a jury. Does that mean he is also skillful with the press? When he gave the appearance that he was on the attack against the Bush administration, was that a deliberate stance, chosen so that critics of Cheney would be satisfied by an investigation that was essentially in house , Fitzgerald being a DOJ prosecutor? His aggressive public persona during that case assured that the outcome would be treated as fair by the public, even the left wing, the sector most likely to question the results. His repeated questioning of Rove before the Grand Jury offered hope to Democrats that he was seriously considering an indictment of Bush’s Brain, even though a pardon would be all but assured. His leak proof Grand Jury was portrayed as a model of prosecutorial discipline-----however, it benefited the Bush administration during the 2004 re-election campaign. Recall that Fitz was named Special Prosecutor in December 2003. Do you recall hearing anything about his investigation in 2004? No, the shit hit the fan after Rove stole the vote in Ohio and W. was safely sworn in. Here is the timeline of the investigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation

Airforce One records are subpoenaed in 2004, then nada until the summer of 2005.

I am not one of those who believes that public shame is enough punishment for the elite. Having Fitzgerald stand behind a podium and imply that the Vice President is probably guilty, too is not justice. Rove and the others at the White House got off without a scratch. So, how did Fitz convince so many Democrats that he had delivered justice for Ms. Plame? Did the press like the idea of a David versus Goliath confrontation, especially with so many other things to be angry about, Katrina, the Downing Street Memos, warrantless wiretaps? Or maybe the press got some help from Fitz and the White House, both of whom wanted the public to think that the investigation was a hostile one, even though it ended very well for both of them----Fitz was a national hero and the White House lost only one soldier, who spent no time in prison.

I know that this is not what people thought that they were seeing, but this is the result of all that drama, and results are what count.

Now, I want to consider the results of this latest indictment. The first thing that strikes me is that Fitzgerald has presented a half assed case. If what he says is true, Gov. Blagojevich was in the middle of negotiations to sell a U.S. Senate seat to one of six contenders. Bidding had gone as high as a million dollars. The governor was wiretapped. The feds had evidence against the governor, but they still lacked compelling evidence against the would-be senators.

If you were a skillful, thorough federal prosecutor, the kind of guy who waited eighteen months in the Plame case before you got to any serious work, would not you continue the investigations until the senate hopefuls made their moves? Would not you want to catch the other politicians on tape, offering bribes? Why stop at catching one Illinois governor when you can rake in three or four Democratic politicians in a huge bribery scandal? Better yet, wait until Blagojevich actually accepts a cash payoff from someone in exchange for the nomination, then nab the senator-to-be after he has been named in the press and lauded by a bunch of Democrats including Obama. This would make the case extremely high profile. A federal prosecutor’s dream case, something that would assure that you would have to be kept on in the new administration, because it would touch on so many high ranking Democrats.

It is obvious that Fitz pulled the plug on this case prematurely, rushing an indictment of Blagojevich only, losing the opportunity to catch or entrap the other Democrats. Why? I can think of two possibilities. One, a Democrat caught wind of Blagojevich’s crazy scheme and threatened to go to the press with it in order to stop him from bringing any further scandal upon the Democratic Party. This would have forced Fitz’s hand. Note that Fitzgerald did not present the case to a Grand Jury. Maybe he was too rushed.

The other possibility is that he was pressured from above by his own Department of Justice. Many people have insisted that the indictment had nothing to do with Blagojevich’s decree that Illinois would stop doing business with Bank of America unless the 250 fired workers at Republic Windows and Door got their severance. How could they be related, since Fitz was investigating Blago already?

Consider this: what if the investigation were ongoing, but the timing of the indictment had everything to do with Bank of America?

Bank of America: You have to do something about this SOB Blagojevich!

Bush Administration Flunky (who wants a job with BofA when he leaves the White House): Don’t worry! He’s under investigation right now by the DOJ. I hear they will be indicting him real soon.

BofA: Real soon isn’t good enough! You know how bad the markets are now! Indict him tomorrow!

BAF: I’ll see what I can do!

BofA: If you don’t, we’ll go to the press and tell them that he is about to be indicted!

BAF: Don’t do that! I’ll talk to Mukasey. We’ll work something out.

If Bank of America threatened to go to the press and tell them that Blagojevich was a crook who was about to be indicted for trying to sell a senate seat or for one of the other crimes that Fitz had pinned on him and if the White House then called the prosecutor and told him Um, sorry, we kind of let the cat out of the bag and now Bank of America is about to go to the press with your information , Fitzgerald would have had no choice but to put together a rushed indictment and make his case----even if it meant losing the chance to make cases against any would be senators who were willing to pay for a senate seat.

Either of these two scenarios are possible. The one thing I am sure of is that Fitz’s hand was forced. Under ordinary circumstances, he would not have chosen to tie up this case like this. He would have let it play out and then he would have presented it to a Grand Jury. Nor would we have seen him act in this uncharacteristic fashion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13coburn.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

In an editorial, the New York Times raises an issue that has concerned me from day one----why did Fitzgerald go out of his way to get on television and portray this alleged crime as one of the most heinous ever committed? This is not good behavior in a prosecutor and this is not the tight lipped Fitz that we all know from the Plame case.

LOST amid the understandable clamor over the charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois are questions raised by the pretrial public comments about the case by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald.

Snip

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “a prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.” Another United States Court of Appeals has observed that “prosecutors sometimes forget that the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.”

Snip

The court in which Mr. Blagojevich is charged, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has a local rule mandating that a “lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be disseminated by public media and, if so disseminated, would pose a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding.” The rule goes on to say that a public statement “ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to” a criminal matter and to “the character or reputation of the accused, or any opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence, as to the merits of the case, or as to the evidence in the case.” The American Bar Association’s model rules are similar, if not more restrictive.

Against this backdrop, it is hard to feel comfortable with Mr. Fitzgerald’s remarks in announcing the charges that Mr. Blagojevich’s conduct amounted to a “political corruption crime spree” and “would make Lincoln roll over in his grave,” that “the breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” that Mr. Blagojevich “put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States senator” and that his conduct was “cynical” and “appalling” and has “taken us to a truly new low.”

Again, several alternative scenarios would explain Fitzgerald’s lapse from usual professional conduct. In the first case, if Democrats had gotten wind of his investigation and destroyed it in order to protect their party, he might be hopping mad. In that case, his public statements might be an ill advised effort to salvage his case against Blagojevich and deliver some pay back to the Democratic whistleblowers who brought a halt to his wiretap investigation by turning in Blagojevich and threatening to turn it all over to the press themselves. This is entirely plausible. Any reasonable Democrat, upon hearing what Blagojevich was up to, would immediately seek to limit the damage to the party that would be inflicted if a number of senate worthy Illinois Democrats were coerced into offering bribes.

In the second case, if his own boss at the Department of Justice had forced him to bring an indictment prematurely because of pressure from Bank of America, Fitzgerald might be similarly angry and fearful that Blagojevich and the senate hopefuls would evade justice due to lack of evidence. Again, his public statements might have been made in the heat of frustrated anger.

As for the effect of the indictment and Fitz’s extraordinary public statements:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6161519.html

Illinois has billions of dollars in unpaid bills, including payments to Medicaid patients, hospitals, pharmacies, nursing homes and schools, and the state has approved $1.4 billion in short-term borrowing to keep cash flowing. But before the borrowing takes effect, Madigan said she has to certify that there is not any legal proceeding threatening the ability of the governor to hold his office.

In light of Friday's filing by her office, Madigan said she can't sign that.
"We will not be able to move forward on it until we have a different governor," Comptroller Dan Hynes said.

The state's inability to pay the bills has "a horrible ripple effect," the comptroller said. He said that pharmacies that count on state reimbursements could shut down, and suppliers could stop delivering food to Illinois prisons or letting state troopers buy gasoline. Businesses waiting for the state to pay its bills could lay off workers or simply go bankrupt, Hynes said.

"If our backlog gets worse, people are going to stop providing services," he said.

Come again? How can a state the size of Illinois not get a line of credit? With all its assets? What kind of bank loan requires you to declare that your governor is not under indictment? I thought that the money was controlled by the legislature and that it passed through the hands of a treasurer. Is this something that every state has to sign or have the banks included this just for Illinois, because of Blagojevich's legal problems---or his Bank of America problems? Is it ethical for lenders to threaten the health of sick people, because a man who has not been convicted yet does not want to admit that he is guilty? I would love to hear more about the creditors involved, but I am willing to bet that all I will be hearing about is Blago and Jesse Jackson Jr. and how well Obama knew each of them.

Now that the poorest, most vulnerable people of Illinois are being threatened, I am reminded of the way that Bush and Cheney attacked California during the first year of their administration. Cheney mocked that state as Enron was price gouging it---with the full cooperation of Enron's handpicked FERC officials. They had their media lackeys, like George Will, declare that no one except gays and commies lived out there, as if that made it all ok. Later, Gov. Davis was blamed for the Enron price gouging and recalled so that Ken Lay’s hand picked choice for governor, Arnold the Terminator could be installed instead. In the end, the Bush DOJ never did indict anyone for the Enron price gouging of California.

The recent attacks on Illinois as the “most corrupt state” and the calls for a special election for senator (Republicans have an advantage in special elections due to low turn out) and now this financial crisis combined with the three year long federal investigation of the state’s Democratic leadership suggest an attempt to insinuate more Republicans into Illinois politics. Since almost every elected official in the nation has done something wrong and will be caught if you wiretap him long enough, placing a skillful prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald in Illinois is bound to pay off if your goal is to disgrace the Democrats. That is the problem with the prosecutorial system. Good or bad, they are paid to get results.

When in doubt about why or how something happened, it helps to look at the broad picture. Though Fitzgerald may be a hero to many on the left, the Bush Department of Justice has a pattern of politically motivated prosecutions. Democrats are routinely the targets of wiretaps, fishing expeditions, bogus prosecutions for non-crimes. For instance, every single Black politician in the city government of Dallas, Texas was investigated by the FBI in a farce of a case that went on forever, before they finally pressed charges against one woman. I think she was accused of accepting some carpet or maybe it was a pair of drapes. Prosecutions of Democrats become media circuses, while cases against Republicans are typically handled in a more low key manner (if the press allows). As one attorney noted on MSNBC, Fitzgerald’s indictment of Blagojevich was full of information that the public would not usually get from a Grand Jury indictment, so in this way, he is following the usual Bush DOJ habit of adding fuel to the fire if the one charged is a Democrat.

If Fitz were not Fitz, I think that there were would be a lot of questions asked about this case----
And so, I think we should ask the question that William Butler Yeats asked “Who can tell the dancer from the dance?” Or, in a more familiar parlance, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is...a duck?

[regnaD kciN]

1. Fitz is no hero to me...

Lots of people on the left seized on him as "our last, best hope" during the darkest days of Bush's second term, but the fact is that he, as the saying goes, labored mightily and brought forth a mouse. I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that he cut a deal with the White House to protect the administration.

He's certainly no crusader for justice.

[ecstatic]

2. Ditto. Bush is a free man. Fitz is a miserable failure nt

[cali]

6. that's a ridiculous statement.

Whether you think he's a hero or a knave, Fitzgerald has little to do with bush still being a free man.

[mtnsnake]

12. I don't think it's a ridiculous statement

Fitzgerald didn't go far enough. All he did was help put a fall guy away for a few years when he could have done more to go after the big prize, Dick Cheney.

[WeDidIt]

13. Obstruction of Justice

That meant he could not get the real criminals because Libby obstructed the effort.

[JDPriestly]

137. He could not get to the real criminals because he did not require

them to answer tough questions under oath. That's why I don't like him. It would be different if he had at least pursued his right to take those depositions up to the Supreme Court.

[rhett o rick]

131. Don't follow you. After thousands of hours of investigation we have zip. nm

[Whisp]

77. he's the fake hero that bides time while his masters plunder.

[chimpymustgo]

93. Ding ding ding!

[lovuian]

161. Bingo

he didn't put Rove and Cheney on the stand

Watch Syriana and you will see what Fitz did

[defendandprotect]

75. My attitude towards Fitz is suspicious ...

but lengthy info I'll re-read tomorrow --

[Titonwan]

133. Yes, indeed-this stinks to high heaven.

Just another example of Bushco making a fool of the public. This country has been punked so many times, it's not even funny anymore. Fitz is just playing his role and the media's playing theirs, but the worst is the Democrats that are brainwashed into believing this hype are the worst fools. What utter hypocrisy to scream for this lowlife's head, while for eight years a mass murderer has been running the White House with an iron fist. Dick Cheney has slithered through the halls of the White House for so long, he thinks he actually owns the place. This is just another shiny distraction, and the dumber of our kin have fallen for it, again. The biggest mistake people make is thinking these people are stupid. They "look" stupid, they act "stupid", but the results ALWAYS COME OUT IN THEIR FAVOR. Real stupid, huh. First rule of combat- NEVER underestimate your enemy. This dog & pony show should NOT keep us from focusing on prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld, Rice and Yoo. Just because this country's been raped for eight years doesn't mean we have to like it OR TAKE IT! Good article and I believe that's exactly what's happening, too. Stand back, folks, and look at the bigger picture.

[cali]

3. You need an editor- badly. At the very least, read Orwell on writing.

This is yet another long winded conspiracy driven piece of speculation based on nothing and pretending to have a foundation in fact. Let's play. Sure, a few folks here do put Fitzgerald on a pedestal. Do most DUers? At the very least, that's debatable. Let's look at the Plame case. It's not nearly as cut and dry legally, as you make it out to be. That's widely known. And it was widely discussed as to how difficult it is to get a conviction on leaking the name of a covert agent.

But let's get to Blagojevich. You focus solely on the Senate Seat For Sale business. That's hardly the only thing that Blagojevich was being investigated for. As for your suggestion that a competent prosecutor would wait until even greater damage had been done, that would have been thoroughly unethical. In fact, that suggestion is insane.

I could go on, but your loony ramblings are truly not worth the effort. Anyone with any sense, will see through your elaborate and absurd conspiracy theory.

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Cali, I am an editor. Give it a rest.

[Blarch]

22. She will never let it rest.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Me doing George Orwell....

Mr. Jones, of Republic Window and Door had shut the business for good, but was too drunk to remember to lock the windows. He had celebrated the fat bonus check he would receive for delivering his inventory and customer list intact to his competitor, Empire Glass and Shutter. Now, he prepared to hurry home to his wife, Mrs. Jones, who was waiting for him with a big picture of martinis. Life was good.

As soon as his Mercedes-Benz vanished around the corner, two-hundred-fifty weary rats crawled out of the gutter. Word had gone round that there would be no severance pay for the laid off workers. It had been agreed that they would all meet in the factory as soon as the boss was safely away....

We all know where this ends. Fitz the Cat corners the leader of the rats who lead the others astray. Mr. Jones proves that he has a heart of gold after all. Down with unions. Hurray for capitalism. Long live the counter revolution.

That is me doing George Orwell.

[cali]

33. Fail. Major fail.

You need to do more reading.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. I found your Orwell Gospel. Here is Orwell vs. Molly Ivins.

I am going to analyze a piece by Molly Ivins, the article in which she wrote that she would never support Hillary Clinton for president using George Orwell's list of "rules" for political writing. Like me, Ivins was a Texan, and so she wrote the way we all talk in Texas, which is a mite differently than they speak in Britain.

Let the games begin!

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-30.htm

"I will not support Hillary Clinton for president" by Molly Ivins

The reference text on which Ms. Ivins will be judged (martyred?) is "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell

http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html

Note that Cali does not cut people like Ivins any slack. Miss Molly may have been an American, but English is English. While the Nobel Prize winning author William Faulkner and the Irish author James Joyce both would have failed Orwell's good writing test, that is just too bad. The English created this language and it belongs to them. If you--pardon me, if one follows the Orwellian rules, Christopher Isherwood would be the greatest novelist of the 20th Century, and everyone else would have to go back to school. Virginia Woolfe was much too self indulgent, especially in The Waves . No tea and crumpets for her.

I am just kidding. Orwell's essay has some very practical advice for writers. But it has some suggestions that are regional, designed to appeal to a British audience. Just look at his first sentence:

"Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the
English language is in a bad way"

That is as Brit English as you can get. Or "git" as we say down here. In the south, we would also say Most people who care would say that the English language is in a decline .

But enough with the Cajun story. Back to Orwell on Ivins.

"(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are
used to seeing in print," writes Orwell. Will Ivins pass the test? Oh no! "conventional-wisdom"... "In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, 'Look, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.'"... "for mercy's sake"..."clueless naifs"..."Republican machine"..."OWN the issue"..."go long"..."Put up, or shut up".

Oh my! Let's move on to number two. "Never use a long word where a short one will do."

"triangulation, calculation and equivocation"..."apparently incapable"..."contemptible"..."superciliously explaining elementary politics"...

What did she do? Steal George Will's thesaurus? Another F. What is number three? "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." Oh, forget that one. She was a Texan! Four, "Never use the passive where you can use the active." That one is easy. All writers know that one. And yet, what about "there are times...there are times...". That does not sound very active to me. That sounds like a folk song. Who said that Ivins could resort to the rhythms of old spirituals to give her piece more emotional impact? Shame on her! Does not she know that political prose should be as lifeless as a...

Oops almost slipped in one of those things Orwell said I should not use.

Five, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you
can think of an everyday English equivalent." That is a good one. "Jargon" to one man is a necessary piece of life saving equipment to the surgeon who is trying to save your life. He is not going to ask for the "string". He is going to ask for the "suture". Orwell forgot to mention that context counts. If the context is a political pamphlet aimed at members of a union, then the author should feel free to use as many technical terms as his fellow union members will understand. Number five reminds me that Orwell was a journalist and that the average reader of a newspaper has a sixth grade comprehension. The average reader at Democratic Underground reads at a level considerably above this.

His prohibition against anything that is "pretentious" presents a similar problem. What does language pretend to be? In college, a student objected to the poetry of Ezra Pound, calling it "pretentious". Was Pound pretending to be a fine poet? I think that when the word pretentious is used, the problem is as likely to lie with the reader as with the author. Not every text is intended for every reader. Though we like to think that we live in a world where all are created equal, we do not all understand quantum physics or economics or baseball. Therefore, if we demand that specialists avoid using specialized language so that everyone can understand what they are writing, we are acting like a bunch of...

Bad McCamy.

Anyway, Molly Ivins flunks the Orwell political writing test. She uses too many long words, too many metaphors and stock phrase. It is a shame that she is dead, otherwise, Cali could have turned her on to Orwell and saved her from the shame of writing like a hick Texan (Imagine how people must have been laughing at her behind her back).

If I hear another word out of you on the subject, Cali, I will do Hunter S. Thompson or maybe Gore Vidal next.

[pnwmom]

45. McCamy, I would really like you do do an Orwell test on Obama's writing.

That might be the last we hear about the Orwell test.

:fistbump:

[suzie]

110. Molly Ivins was a Texan.

She was never guilty of rambling.

To put yourself in the same category as the always funny, always on point Molly Ivins seems more than a little vain.

[Mithreal]

130. Hooray, that was an educating response. Thank you. nt

[JDPriestly]

139. Orwell's advice is great for sophisticated writing for sophisticated

audiences, possibly even academic or quasi-academic readers, but here on DU, McCamy's style was perfect. You don't wear a formal gown to a rodeo. Please.

[Blarch]

97. speaking of 'major fail'

[OnyxCollie]

58. George Orwell "Politics and the English Language"

I believe Cali was referring to this.

DYING METAPHORS. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (e. g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a ‘rift’, for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

OPERATORS OR VERBAL FALSE LIMBS. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.

PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers(1). The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.

MEANINGLESS WORDS. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning(2). Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

[NoPasaran]

113. "...waiting for him with a big picture of martinis. Life was good. "

To each his own, I guess. But it doesn't sound like much of a party to me.

[cali]

36. I will never let rest bullshit in the guise of gospel truth.

It shouldn't be left to rest.

[Whisp]

79. nor will I, and others. you lose on this one o mighty meglo cali

[cali]

28. even editors need editors

and really, this is a truly poor piece of writing- and you know I don't think much of of most of your posts. Again, you need to read what Orwell wrote about political writing.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. Have you read what Roland Barthes wrote about writing?

The removal of the Author (one could talk here with Brecht of a veritable ‘distancing’, the Author diminishing like a figurine at the far end of the literary stage) is not merely an historical fact or an act of writing; it utterly transforms the modern text (or — which is the same thing —the text is henceforth made and read in such a way that at all its levels the author is absent). The temporality is different. The Author, when believed in, is always conceived of as the past of his own book: book and author stand automatically on a single line divided into a before and an after. The Author is thought to nourish the book, which is to say that he exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in the same relation of antecedence to his work as a father to his child. In complete contrast, the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, is not the subject with the book as predicate; there is no other time than that of the enunciation and every text is eternally written here and now. The fact is (or, it follows) that writing can no longer designate an operation of recording, notation, representation, ‘depiction’ (as the Classics would say); rather, it designates exactly what linguists, referring to Oxford philosophy, call a performative a rare verbal form (exclusively given in the first person and in the present tense) in which the enunciation has no other content (contains no other proposition) than the act by which it is uttered—something like the I declare of kings or the I sing of very ancient poets. Having buried the Author, the modern scriptor can thus no longer believe, as according to the pathetic view of his predecessors, that this hand is too slow for his thought or passion and that consequently, making a law of necessity, he must emphasize this delay and indefinitely ‘polish’ his form. For him, on the contrary, the hand, cut off from any voice, borne by a pure gesture of inscription (and not of expression), traces a field without origin—or which, at least, has no other origin than language itself, language which ceaselessly calls into question all origins.

We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture. Similar to Bouvard and Pecuchet, those eternal copyists, at once sublime and comic and whose profound ridiculousness indicates precisely the truth of writing, the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original. His only power is to mix writings, to counter the ones with the others, in such a way as never to rest on any one of them. Did he wish to express himself, he ought at least to know that the inner ‘thing’ he thinks to ‘translate’ is itself only a ready-formed dictionary, its words only explainable through other words, and so on indefinitely; something experienced in exemplary fashion by the young Thomas de Quincey, he who was so good at Greek that in order to translate absolutely modern ideas and images into that dead language, he had, so Baudelaire tells us (in Paradis Artificiels), ‘created for himself an unfailing dictionary, vastly more extensive and complex than those resulting from the ordinary patience of purely literary themes’. Succeeding the Author, the scriptor no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt: life never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred.

Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering the Author (or its hypostases: society, history, psyche, liberty) beneath the work: when the Author has been found, the text is ‘explained’—victory to the critic. Hence there is no surprise in the fact that, historically, the reign of the Author has also been that of the Critic, nor again in the fact that criticism (be it new) is today undermined, along with the Author. In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered; the structure can be followed, ‘run’ (like the thread of a stocking) at every point and at every level, but there is nothing beneath: the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced; writing ceaselessly posits meaning ceaselessly to evaporate it, carrying out a systematic exemption of meaning. In precisely this way literature (it would bebetter from now on to say writing), by refusing to assign a ‘secret’, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.

Roland Barthe The Death of the Author

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm

Myth as stolen language

What is characteristic of myth? To transform a meaning into form. In other words, myth is always a language-robbery. I rob the Negro who is saluting, the white and brown chalet, the seasonal fall in fruit prices, not to make them into examples or symbols, but to naturalize through them the Empire, my taste for Basque things, the Government. Are all primary languages a prey for myth? Is there no meaning which can resist this capture with which form threatens it? In fact, nothing can be safe from myth, myth can develop its second-order schema from any meaning and, as we saw, start from the very lack of meaning. But all languages do not resist equally well.

Articulated language, which is most often robbed by myth, offers little resistance. It contains in itself some mythical dispositions, the outline of a sign-structure meant to manifest the intention which led to its being used: it is what could be called the expressiveness of language. The imperative or the subjunctive mode, for instance, arethe form of a particular signified, different from the meaning: the signified is here my will or my request. This is why some linguists have defined the indicative, forinstance, as a zero state or degree, compared to the subjunctive or the imperative. Now in a fully constituted myth, the meaning is never at zero degree, and this is why the concept can distort it, naturalize it. We must remember once again that the privation of meaning is in no way a zero degree: this is why myth can perfectly well gethold of it, give it for instance the signification of the absurd, of surrealism, etc. At bottom, it would only be the zero degree which could resist myth.

Language lends itself to myth in another way: it is very rare that it imposes at the outset a full meaning which it is impossible to distort. This comes from the abstractness of its concept: the concept of tree is vague, it lends itself to multiple contingencies. True, a language always has at its disposal a whole appropriating organization (this tree, the tree which, etc.). But there always remains, around the final meaning, a halo of virtualities where other possible meanings are floating: the meaning can almost always be interpreted. One could say that a language offers to myth an open-work meaning. Myth can easily insinuate itself into it, and swell there: it is a robbery by colonization
(for instance: the fall in prices has started. But what fall? That due to the season or that due to the government? the signification becomes here a parasite of the article, in spite of the latter being definite).

When the meaning is too full for myth to be able to invade it, myth goes around it, and carries it away bodily. This is what happens to mathematical language. In itself, it cannot be distorted, it has taken all possible precautions against interpretation: no parasitical signification can worm itself into it. And this is why, precisely, myth takes it away en bloc; it takes a certain mathematical formula (E = mc2), and makes of this unalterable meaning the pure signifier of mathematicity. We can see that what is here robbed by myth is something which resists, something pure. Myth can reach everything, corrupt everything, and even the very act of refusing oneself to it. So that the more the language-object resists at first, the greater its final prostitution; whoever here resists completely yields completely: Einstein on one side, Paris-Match on the other. One can give a temporal image of this conflict: mathematical language is a finished language, which derives its very perfection from this acceptance of death. Myth, on the contrary, is a language which does not want to die: it wrests from the meanings which give it its sustenance an insidious, degraded survival, it provokes in them an artificial reprieve in which it settles comfortably, it turns them into speaking corpses.

Here is another language which resists myth as much as it can: our poetic language. Contemporary poetry10 is a regressive semiological system. Whereas myth aims at an ultra-signification, at the amplification of a first system, poetry, on the contrary, attempts to regain an infra-signification, a pre-semiological state of language; in short, it tries to transform the sign back into meaning: its ideal, ultimately, would be to reach not the meaning of words, but the meaning of things themselves. 11 This is why it clouds the language, increases as much as it can the abstractness of the concept and the arbitrariness of the sign and stretches to the limit the link between signifier and signified. The open-work structure of the concept is here maximally exploited: unlike what happens in prose, it is all the potential of the signified that the poetic sign tries to actualize, in the hope of at last reaching something like the transcendent quality of the thing, its natural (not human) meaning. Hence the essentialist ambitions of poetry, the conviction that it alone catches the thing in itself; inasmuch, precisely, as it wants to be an anti-language. All told, of all those who use speech, poets are the least formalist, for they are the only ones who believe that the meaning of the words is only a form, with which they, being realists, cannot be content. This is why our modern poetry always asserts itself as a murder of language, a kind of spatial, tangible analogue of silence. Poetry occupies a position which is the reverse of that of myth: myth is a semiological system which has the pretension of transcending itself into a factual system; poetry is a semiological system which has the pretension of contracting into an essential system.

But here again, as in the case of mathematical language, the very resistance offered by poetry makes it an ideal prey for myth: the apparent lack of order of signs, which is the poetic facet of an essential order, is captured by myth, and transformed into an empty signifier, which will serve to signify poetry. This explains the improbable character of modern poetry: by fiercely refusing myth, poetry surrenders to it bound hand and foot. Conversely, the rules in classical poetry constituted an accepted myth, the conspicuous arbitrariness of which amounted to perfection of a kind, since the equilibrium of a semiological system comes from the arbitrariness of its signs.

A voluntary acceptance of myth can in fact define the whole of our traditional Literature. According to our norms, this Literature is an undoubted mythical system: there is a meaning, that of the discourse; there is a signifier, which is this same discourse as form or writing; there is a signified, which is the concept of literature; there is a signification, which is the literary discourse. I began to discuss this problem in Writing Degree Zero, which was, all told, nothing but a mythology of literary language. There I defined writing as the signifier of the literary myth, that is, as a form which is already filled with meaning and which receives from the concept of Literature a new signification. 12 I suggested that history, in modifying the writer's consciousness, had provoked, a hundred years or so ago, a moral crisis of literary language: writing was revealed as signifier, Literature as signification; rejecting the false nature of traditional literary language, the writer violently shifted his position in the direction of an anti-nature of language. The subversion of writing was the radical act by which a number of writers have attempted to reject Literature as a mythical system. Every revolt of this kind has been a murder of Literature as signification: all have postulated the reduction of literary discourse to a simple semiological system, oreven, in the case of poetry, to a pre-semiological system. This is an immense task, which required radical types of behavior: it is well known that some went as far as the pure and simple scuttling of the discourse, silence--whether real or transposed--appearing as the only possible weapon against the major power of myth: its recurrence.

It thus appears that it is extremely difficult to vanquish myth from the inside: for the very effort one makes in order to escape its strangle hold becomes in its turn the prey of myth: myth can always, as a last resort, signify the resistance which is brought to bear against it. Truth to tell, the best weapon against myth is perhaps to mythify it in its turn, and to produce an artificial myth: and this reconstituted myth will in fact be a mythology. Since myth robs language of something, why not rob myth?


Roland Barthes Mythologies

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes04.htm

I do not write to pronounce. I write to suggest. The very format of Democratic Underground, the post with follow up is an organic rather than a dogmatic one. It encourages the exchange of ideas. Cali, when you insist that I become Orwell or any other set piece political author, you are attempting to stifle free play, or, in the political realm, the free exchange of ideas. This is a right wing or conservative position, no matter what politics you may think that you embrace. As Barthes will write later in Mythologies only the writing of the left which attempts to characterize the actual nature of the world free of superstition and prejudice is able to free itself from the strangle hold of myth.

There is therefore one language which is not mythical, it is the language of man as a producer: wherever man speaks in order to transform reality and no longer to preserve it as an image, wherever he links his language to the making of things, metalanguage is referred to a language-object, and myth is impossible. This is why revolutionary language proper cannot be mythical. Revolution is defined as a cathartic act meant to reveal the political load of the world: it makes the world; and its language, all of it, is functionally absorbed in this making. It is because it generates speech which is fully, that is to say initially and finally, political, and not, like myth, speech which is initially political and finally natural, that Revolution excludes myth. Just as bourgeois ex-nomination characterizes at once bourgeois ideology and myth itself, revolutionary denomination identifies revolution and the absence of myth. The bourgeoisie hides the fact that it is the bourgeoisie and thereby produces myth; revolution announces itself openly as revolution and thereby abolishes myth.

Roland Barthes Mythologies

It may have felt wrong when Thomas Jefferson wrote that the Christian Church was responsible for more wars, deaths and sufferings that any other single force in western history. No doubt, many thought that he should write as other, more acceptable people of his own time wrote. However, he was attempting to define previously uncharted territory. So, he stated something that may have struck people as ineptly put, rude or even flat out wrong. However, history has vindicated him. He was writing from the left, with clear sight.

I do not claim to write like Jefferson or Tom Paine, but I would rather write like them than like George Orwell.

[pnwmom]

46. Where can we go to read your essays, cali?

Or does your writing consist only of bashing others?

[Jakes Progress]

66. Yep.

[bahrbearian]

90. ride roughshod over

[JDPriestly]

145. Now we know how you feel about the style, what is your response to the substance?

I assume your response regarding the substance of the OP will be written in a style that George Orwell would approve.

[chimpymustgo]

95. And McCamy, you are a clear-eyed thinker - never caught up in the hysteria that often overtakes DU.

Keep up your good work (and avoiding the madness of crowds).

Your piece is excellent food for thought. Would that a few just read - and think.

[Whisp]

78. take a nap

[NashVegas]

98. Jesus Fucking Christ, That's Petty

[JDPriestly]

138. It's not a conspiracy. Fitzgerald should have put Cheney and

Bush under oath. And if they refused, he should have taken the matter to court. That was his ethical duty -- to pursue the truth.

As for Blagojevich, by cutting the investigation short, Fitzgerald protected potential Senate appointees from being co-defendants. Neat trick if you ask me.

And Fitzgerald's excuses for acting so rashly do not hold up. The individual who bought the seat would have been in no position to be seated -- and the Senate which has the last word on the qualifications of senators, would not have seated that person. So, there was no need to rush unless Fitzgerald was trying to curry favor with Obama or the Democratic Party so that he can keep his job.

Fitzgerald is a team player in by book, not an independent maverick. He is too much of a team player to make a really good independent prosecutor.

[WeDidIt]

4. This is almost as tinfoilhat nutty as the Birth Certificate Cultists

:tinfoilhat:

[cali]

5. Indeed. Sadly, too many people are impressed by sheer wordiness

The OP is nigh on unreadable. It takes a lot of space to say... pretty much nothing.

[pnwmom]

9. Maybe you need some new reading glasses.

I thought it was highly readable, and made an interesting argument.

[WeDidIt]

11. Yeah. So was Polarik's analysis of Barack's Birth Certificate

:eyes:

It's tinfoilhat nuttery.

[pnwmom]

39. The OP is a respected DUer, unlike Polarik.

Many of us were disappointed with Fitzgerald's performance in the Plame case. All that huffing and puffing, and for what?

I think Taylor's thoughts about Fitzgerald in the Blago case are well worth considering.

[WeDidIt]

40. Polarik is well respected by the Birth Certificate Cultists

So it appears, a Cult of the Bank of America is forming.

[pnwmom]

48. No, I think what we're seeing is a Cult of Fitzgerald. n/t

[WeDidIt]

49. No, definitely a Cult of the ALL POWERFUL Bank of America

Seriously, Blagojevich knew he was in deep and was cynically using the situation at the plant to try and drum up some level of support above the piddly little 14%.

Anybody who claims the Bank of America got Fitzgerald to move on Blagojevich is stupider than the Birth Certificate Cultists, and that says something.

[Whisp]

80. he was a total bust, a lacklustre Nothing when push came to shove.

but he is so adorable looking and has a cat...

[cali]

14. Really? Then you'll have no problem summing it up in a paragraph

It's poorly written, albeit grammatically acceptable. If you think the OP was highly readable, I suggest that you too partake in some Orwell on writing.

[mtnsnake]

20. Why are you being so incredibly miserable about how someone else writes an OP?

The post is long, but it's enjoyable to read and it's as decent a theory as anything else. Why are you crapping all over it? What's your problem?

[cali]

23. because I have a strong distaste for pretentious crap with no substance

and it's a ridiculous theory. What about it is reasonable? Seriously, put it in your own words and tell me what makes sense in the OP?

[pnwmom]

43. I'm guessing the real answer is one of two options.

Either you have an aversion to reading long pieces in general, OR
you are a Fitzgerald devoutee and can't tolerate any criticism of him.

[Truth2Tell]

63. There are other options.

They involve distracting from the discussion, to put it nicely.

[chimpymustgo]

96. Cali, how about discussing the actual CONTENT of the post? Take a minute to debunk any claims you

find absurd. Please. I'd love to hear more than - "the OP is poorly written crap". Really, such a fine mind of yours must do better!

[JDPriestly]

147. Are you describing your own writing? Because if so, I would have to agree with you.

[Shakespeare]

175. I'll second that.

Verbal volume cloaked in faux-intellectualism does not equal quality. And it's SOP with the original poster.

[Grateful for Hope]

65. I have seen this tactic elsewhere here on DU

It is a "clever" way to denigrate the author while simulaneously drawing attention away from the substance of that author's post.

Fortunately, this tactic is really not all that "clever".

I am not sure I agree 100% with the OP, but, I do have my doubts about Fitz.

[Generator]

151. Because she/he/it is the penultimate bitch of DU

One of the nastiest posters ever though occasionally (we grudgingly admit) entertaining to watch someone so always filled to the brim with vile.

[Rebubula]

167. Sorry...

.. I agree with your post....but penultimate means 'second to last' - it has no other meaning.

Mom is English teacher and this sort of annoying crap has been beaten into me...I apologize.

[pnwmom]

41. Sum up a long, detailed essay in a paragraph?

As a test of how well-written the essay is?

That's a ridiculous suggestion. Any real writer knows what a challenge it is to summarize a long essay in a single paragraph. And the more well-written the essay is in the first place, the harder it may be to summarize.

If you doubt that, then try summarizing any of Obama's great speeches into a single paragraph.

[bridgit]

50. Hm, how bout: If 'we' aren't able to understand the relationship between BofA, Bechtel, Parsons...

Halliburton, China Construction Bank, The Middle Kingdom, the ME, Iraq no-bid reconstruction contracts & activities, 'sand in the eyes' Fitzmas, Exxon, Cheney, the federal reserve & who controls it, the further/continued threat to American social entitlement programs, etc, oh and BTW Blago has to go...it really is no wonder we're viewed as small, tiny little potato's trying to make our own gravy :(

[1monster]

114. I've read and taught Orwell. He doesn't follow his own rules of writing if what you have posted

is the sum total of his rules.

If he did, his writing would have been so boring as to be unreadable.

And he used BIG words too. The link below is to his essay, SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/887/

[Jakes Progress]

68. Yeah, but it had all those print things.

You know, words and stuff. Cali is all new age and all. Pictures that move and quick statements without source. It's the world of Brawndo. It's got what plants crave.

[JDPriestly]

146. Here is what I understand it to say in just a few words: Fitzpatrick is a mediocre prosecutor.

He moved too slowly in the Plame case and never caught his man (or woman). He has moved too fast in the Blagojevich and therefore not caught all of his men (or women).

[Cha]

7. Thanks for calling this

to our attention and all your research. We'll have to see how this plays out. Too bad Fitz couldn't get anyone besides libby in all that conspiracy.

[cali]

16. what research? This is like the Emperor's new clothes.

Seriously, there's no research that backs up her conspiracy theory. None. Read the OP.

[Jakes Progress]

69. What happened? Did McCamy

not invite you to a party? Wear the same frock? Drink your orange juice?

You spend a lot of time complaining about something you don't seem able to refute. Your logic runs like this. "I disagree and if you disagree with me, you are just an old dumb-head. Oh, and your mother can't write. So there."

If you have such a long standing hatred of these posts, don't click on them. Your bile only feeds back on you. Take deep cleansing breaths. Go to your happy place.

[bahrbearian]

84. Thats a great reply. Its exactly how I feel. n/t

[cali]

91. please read my initial post in this thread

and i just happen to think most of her posts are tarted up CTs- pretentious garbage. And her posts don't bother me nearly as much as the people who recommend/agree with them and clearly haven't read them.

[Jakes Progress]

117. Jealousy and anger

will only destroy the better angels that inhabit your soul.

[jaysunb]

8. Maybe, the Plame affair isn't over....

:shrug: Was the investigation ever declared closed ?

Good post just the same.

[OnyxCollie]

19. It was suspended, pending more information from Congress.

Independent prosecutors are given a narrow task to investigate. Fitzgerald's task was to prosecute the Plame leak, which meant identifying who leaked her name, whether or not they knew she was covert, and if they did it intentionally (as per the law). It wasn't going to be easy. Libby's lying made that an impossibility.

[jaysunb]

26. Well, there is or will be a new

"sheriff" in town, next month. :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

148. It wasn't Libby's lying that made it impossible. It was Fitzgerald's

failure to require (or at least attempt to require) the real culprits to testify UNDER OATH and ON THE RECORD.

[mtnsnake]

10. Funny, I was thinking of posting some skepticism about him too, but haven't had time lately

The impression I got of Fitz last week was that he was going after Blago with a vengeance because it would be such a popular thing to do and because Blago seems to be such a sitting duck.

People immeidately started comparing Fitz to Elliot Ness. What a crock that is. If Fitzgerald went after the real heavyweight crooks like he has with Blago, Cheney would be sitting in prison right now, not just Scooter Libby. Maybe Bush by now, too.

Personally I think Fitz might have jumped the gun a little on this and I wouldn't be shocked if Blago doesn't end up quite as easy a case as what Fitz is thinking. I'm not rooting for Blago or anything like that if he's as guilty as what everyone's saying, but I think Fitzterald's juices are flowing twice as fast because Blago has the D after his title.

Fitzgerald is no freaking hero or Dich Cheney would be rotting in jail by now.

[pjt7]

99. Great point

"Fitzgerald is no freaking hero or Dick Cheney would be rotting in jail by now"

[chimpymustgo]

100. You said it! I was also very concerned with Fitzgerald's over the top language. That sent up red

flags. "Lincoln turning in his grave!"...appalling...sickening, etc. And the timing is questionable.

And he screwed the pooch with the Plame investigation. All that sturm and drang for essentially nothing. But damn, it fooled a bunch of lefties - which was kind of scary and disheartening.

[JDPriestly]

149. And, by doing this, by attacking a Democrat, he makes it difficult

for Obama to replace him. That would look partisan, you know.

There is a rumor that Rahm Emmanuel actually blew the whistle on Blagojevich. Quite possible. If so, then I reserve the right to espouse the theory that Fitzgerald moved so quickly on Blagojevich so that he could absolve Obama and get into Obama's good graces.

I don't have enough facts to know the truth. Until I do, I will theorize and speculate as I wish. There are lots of possibilities. It is by considering possibilities, by theorizing, that we arrive at hypotheses that we can then prove or disprove as evidence becomes available. That's how investigation works. And, here we investigate. If we had all the evidence, we would not need to theorize. Until we do, we are free to theorize and speculate.

[countingbluecars]

15. I don't know about all of this

but I do think that he was over the top in his Blagojevich press conference. IMO he should have presented the facts without all the dramatic opinions.

[mtnsnake]

17. Exactly

I thought the same thing when I heard his press conference, how dramatic he was acting. It was outright arrogance, too.

[IsItJustMe]

53. It was over the top in my judgement. Something quit right about it. Time will tell, I think.

[cali]

18. I can wholeheartedly agree with that- but that's a long way from

the nutty CT the OP has put forth.

[H2O Man]

30. It is impossible

to take it seriously when a person makes absolutely false claims such as "Bush himself has claimed that he ordered the outing."

[cali]

34. Oh, I absolutely agree with you. The OP is, well, garbage

and as you pointed out, uses lies to make the case. I was simply agreeing with the person that said Fitzgerald's press conference was a little over the top.

[JDPriestly]

150. It's called "poisoning the jury pool." It is a cheap trick that dishonors

the office of federal prosecutor.

[CK_John]

24. Protecting his possible appointment to head the FBI, may be a reason. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

25. I normally agree with the OP.

But I don't think this stands up.

A reading of MORRISON V. OLSON, 487 U. S. 654 (1988) is in order.

[H2O Man]

29. Baloney.

"Bush himself has claimed that he ordered the outing." Please provide a single piece of evidence that shows this to be true. Why make shit up out of thin air?

[McCamy Taylor]

35. Sorry, I meant to say he ordered Libby to release classified NIE to the press

to discredit Wilson. He did not try to deny it once Libby used it in his defense. Also, Libby revealed that Bush was there when they were all talking about how they were going to take down Wilson and they were talking about his wife Plame which made it seem sort of odd how Bush later played dumb.

If you google "Bush approved leak" you get dozens of hits from 2006 including this one from TruthOut

http://www.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-bush-and-cheney-discussed-plame-prior-leak

[tritsofme]

51. You are defending your position by citing Jason Leopold?

How silly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

164. There's a huge difference between what you said, and what you meant to say

Trying to discredit Wilson's report about Niger is completely separate from outing a CIA agent.

As pointed out, Jason Leopold is not a reliable source in this case.

[JDPriestly]

152. H2O Man, do you know who ordered the outing?

I don't believe anyone does. Fitzgerald did not find out because he did not put the principles in this matter under oath but instead allowed them to speak off the record. He simply interviewed them. That was his big mistake. He has deprived all of us of the information that could have been obtained had he put the major players under oath. That is why I do not trust Fitzgerald.

[bahrbearian]

32. Sit Down and Shut Up

:sarcasm:

[McCamy Taylor]

37. Should I eat my bread and enjoy my circus?

[Two Americas]

38. K and R

Thoughtful piece. Thanks.

[Jennicut]

44. You know not everything is a conspiracy, Blago was corrupt and being investigated for years

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against Dems all the time? Blago is about as corrupt as they come in small local politics. Obviously Bush and Cheney have crimes which make Blago's pale in comparison. But he deserves to be taken down. As far as Fitz is concerned, how would YOU prosecute crimes that can be covered up using executive privilege. Obviously, Fritz knew Cheney had to do with the Plame outing but how can you get any evidence when what the pres and VP did was cover it up as a blanket executive privilege. The president is allowed too much power and needs to be limited. Obama and Biden will limit the prez and vp's power but we almost need some laws regarding this, a change to the Constitution. Bush and Cheney were allowed to get away with too much and the SUpreme Court says its allowed.

[McCamy Taylor]

54. (Dem) was investigated for years....this can be a sign of the conspiracy.

I need more proof than X was investigated for years by anyone within the Bush DOJ to call a Democrat corrupt. That is because I learn from history, as in the cases of Siegelman, Spitzer, Georgia Thompson and others. The indictment that was handed out this week has not convinced me. Maybe it will convince a jury. Maybe not. Politicians can unpopular and not be criminals. Jimmy Carter was a saint, and he was unpopular.

[WeDidIt]

55. Take off your tinfoil hat

Blago was more corrupt than George Ryan.

I live in Illinois. Everybody knew Blago was running pay to play scams. Hell, his father-in-olaw wrote him off after the landfill that was paying him to play took it on the chin for not paying Blago to play.

I knew the bastard was crooked when I voted for him in the 2006 general election. The only difference between him and his crooked opponent was the letter behind their names.

Blagojevich is as crooked as the day is long. Had Fitzgerald not taken him down, Madigan would have.

[Jakes Progress]

70. Should read the OP and not just the replies.

I can't find anywhere that the OP says Blago was a saint. The post is about Fitzgerald. I see you are from Illinois. I can understand the anger at having such a nut as governor. I live in Texas. But you need a wider view of things when it comes to national issues.

I don't see the point as being about the Governor being honest. If you follow the pattern. The justice department targets Dems - not reps. Do you mean to tell me that you think there are no republican governors who should be investigated? What about Alaska? How about Gov. Goodhair here in Texas. Lots of crooked politicians. Why this one? Now? Think maybe there's a need to shift blame towards the PE since he is from Ill? Think maybe there's publicity to be had from a case the neocon media will cover?

[nemo137]

81. Except this same, horrible DOJ also took down Ryan (R)

The timing of this one was important because Blago was soliciting bribes for high, federal office, and allowing the invstigation to continue would have tainted the appointment.

[WeDidIt]

85. I was replying to a reply where the OP stated she didn't believe Blago was guilty

And Patrick Fitzgerald took down Blagojevich's REPUBLICAN predecessor.

Judy Baar Topinka was every bit as crooked as Rod Blagojevich and had she won in 2006 instead of Blagojevich, Fitzgerald would ahve taken her down.

Take off the tinfoil hat.

[NashVegas]

106. Where Was That Statement, Exactly?

I always thought McCamy was a guy's name.

[WeDidIt]

118. This one

I need more proof than X was investigated for years by anyone within the Bush DOJ to call a Democrat corrupt. That is because I learn from history, as in the cases of Siegelman, Spitzer, Georgia Thompson and others. The indictment that was handed out this week has not convinced me. Maybe it will convince a jury. Maybe not. Politicians can unpopular and not be criminals. Jimmy Carter was a saint, and he was unpopular.

B;agojevich is a criminal. Everybody in Illinois knows Blagojevich is a criminal. There's no conspiracy here, though the OP would like to create one.

[NashVegas]

121. In Order to Be Rightfully Called a Criminal

One must be convicted of a crime.

One may believe Blago a criminal anytime at will, but reasonable people wait for proof and a trial to call them one in public.

[WeDidIt]

124. It's an open and shut case. Blagojevich is a criminal

I knew he was a criminal moer than two years ago when I voted for him, but I was faced with a choice between two criminals, so I picked the criminal with a (D) after his name.

[NashVegas]

125. Oy

With friends like that ...

[WeDidIt]

126. Blagojevich is not my "friend" nor will he ever be

I literally had to hold my nose in order to vote for the fucking criminal.

[Jakes Progress]

116. I'll take off my tinfoil

hat, if you will open a window. You know. look outside. Talk to real people. No, chat rooms don't count.

Also, you must promise to read posts before replying. Read carefully without deciding what cute thing you can say before your finish figuring out what the post said. My reply concerned your post that said that the OP wanted to say Blag was innocent. I said that that was not what she said, tha it was about Fitzgerald. Then you got all excited about being able to bring up aluminum haberdashery and ignored the point. I didn't say you had to agree with the OP. You love Fitz, and that is fine. Tell of his great deeds. Enumerate his qualities in rebuttal. But your post that I replied to didn't do that. It went off on a rant about how stupid the OP was because Blag was a crook. I pointed out that the the OP wasn't about Blag, but about Fitz. Of couse, I was right and you were wrong, so you ignore the substance of my post and call me tin foil hat person. All this while complaining that the OP doesn't use good reasoning or logic.

Reach up on your head. Feel that crinkly, metallic stuff. See if it will come off. The sunshine will feel good on your head.

[JDPriestly]

154. Why did you vote for him if you knew he was corrupt?

[WeDidIt]

171. IT was a choice between a criminal Democrat and a criminal Republican

I chose the Democratic Criminal because I wanted a Democratic Criminal appointing Obama's successor (yes, I was 100% convinced Obama would run AND win way back in 2006) instead of a Republican Criminal.

It was the proverbial choice between two evils, and I chose the lesser evil.

[ellie]

163. True!

My brother, who lived in Illinois for years, has an ongoing lawsuit against the state of Illinois and said the whole system is corrupt. Ryan was corrupt. Blago was corrupt. And whoever takes over will probably end up being corrupt. It does not matter what political party he/she belongs to.

It is the nature of the beast.

[Jennicut]

94. Rethugs have been investigated and taken down as well

Or have you forgotten Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney? Or is this all about Fitzgerald and your dislike of him? Like one person could take down Bush and Cheney and like they would allow that to happen. The lesson is other Americans who voted for them must realize that once you put someone line the presidency like that, it is impossible to get them out these days. Much harder then when Nixon was president.

[rhett o rick]

132. Maybe it is too much to expect Fitz to take down Bush/Cheney, but it would have been

nice if he could have gotten someone except lowly Libby.

[JDPriestly]

153. If Blagojevich was investigated for such a long time, the

charges against him should be more numerous. We shall see. Call it intuition, but I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is more to Fitzgerald's behavior than meets the eye. It is something that is at this point hard to place, but since I first heard his statement, I have sensed something either missing or wrong. I know that my gut reaction is pretty irrelevant, but I am reacting to tone of voice, rhythm of speech and timing as well as the strange substance of Fitzgerald's accusations. Clearly, Blagojevich's language and his statements were over the top. But what was going on. Has he been like that before or is he going through some kind of nervous breakdown?

The fact that so many people in Illinois hate him is amazing since he just stood for election in 2006. If he is so corrupt, why didn't an honest Democratic candidate try to defeat him in the primary in 2006?

[bridgit]

47. k&r'd...

:kick:

[IsItJustMe]

52. I saw that prosecution as half azzed and incomplete, and that is the best thing I can say about it.

The only reason I think that Fitz gets so much good press from the left is because he was one of the few prosecutor's to do anything at all with this circus.

[AllentownJake]

56. I never trusted Spitzer and I'm not a fan of Fizt either

I also don't believe in any Bush Conspiracy against Blago. Blago was a crook and everyone knew it. There is a reason he was the only Illinois politian not invited to Barack's speech on election night. He's dirty and both Illinois Dems and Repukes have been waiting for a time when they could remove him from the Govenor's mansion.

That being said, I view Spitzer and Fitz in the same category. Ambitous lawyers looking to make a name for themselves to run for higher office. I don't believe guilt or innocence is really that important to them as much as their political careers in the future.

[Catherine Vincent]

59. "..to run for higher office. "

Spitz maybe but not the Fitz.

[AllentownJake]

101. Wait till 2010 or 2014

and you see him on one of the parties slate of candidates.

The guy is making a name for himself...and I believe he intends to use it.

[Catherine Vincent]

57. Whew! A lot of reading there.

But your skepticism of Fitzgerald I can take. Not every DUer digs him like I and many others do. Believe it or not, I still haven't viewed all of his press conference. I've only seen snippets. As far as some of you saying that the Fitz was being too dramatic, well he's heard some of Gov. Blago's backhanded deals that we don't yet know about. We'll have to see the out come of this. I don't think the Fitz made this arrest to help the Republicans. It's just his way of fighting corruption and as he says...just doing his job.

[stillcool]

60. I have been troubled..

by the coincidence of his getting promoted, and shipped off to Illinois in September of 2001, after spending those years in New York investigating Osama bin Laden and the 1998 bombings in Africa. Perhaps the tinfoil is too tight, but when there is no truth anything is possible.

[chimpymustgo]

102. Now there you go bringing up some stuff we're supposed to have forgotten!! Thank you.

It does make you wonder - even more - about Old Fitz - and his usefullness.

[JDPriestly]

155. So I'll say it. What if Fitzgerald is hoping to squeeze Blagojevich

for "information" (possibly fabricated) about Obama and Rezko? Fitzgerald made it clear that Obama is not involved in this. But, on the other hand, Blagojevich probably has all kinds of information about the dirty underside of Illinois politics about a lot of people. Should be interesting from here on out. And Blagojevich, in my opinion, may not be able to tell truth from falsehood. He seems to be going through some kind of psychological break-down. He is vulnerable. He is desperate. He might say anything. If he is willing to seek bribes, he is probably willing to lie.

[chimpymustgo]

172. Oh dear. That's as plausible a hypothesis and anything.

[stillcool]

174. it seems that Rezko..

gave him most of the stuff he cited in the complaint..although the complaint said that much of that stuff had not been verified, and Rezko, as far as I know hasn't been sentenced yet.

[Danger Mouse]

61. I don't think Fitz is any 'folk hero' but Blago is as corrupt as they come.

Please don't try and make an ass of yourself and claim otherwise.

[mmm413]

62. I understand your frustration and anger.

I've worked for lawyers for over 30 years. Fitzgerald did the best he could given the obstruction he had to deal with. Libby's obstruction prevented Fitzgerald from getting to the heart of the matter. He knew it. He said so in his press conferences, but there was just so much he could do under the law (which under this mal-Adminstration has become a room for wiggle-room for those who don't think the law applies to them). Fitzgerald is not a media whore. He is a very competent and apparently ethical US attorney who is as frustrated as the rest of us are. I know I was very disappointed when he gave that press conference about Libby. But he did say there was a "cloud" over Cheney. And by saying that he made it very clear that Cheney had broken the law but Fitzgerald could't prove it because of Libby's obstruction.

[JDPriestly]

156. Fitzgerald allowed Bush and other leading figures in the Plame

matter to answer questions in an informal interview. He should have placed them under oath an on the record. That is why I do not trust Fitzgerald. He is a prosecutor. He was charged with investigating the leak of a CIA agent. He had the power to call any person he wished.

[iconicgnom]

64. So yah, whatever. I'm not a bit skeptical of Patrick Fitzgerald, tho'.

He's done a shitload more than most.

[madrchsod]

72. yes-- he has a long list of convictions on some really nasty people

we`ll gladly keep him here in the northern district of illinois. both durbin and obama have stated that fitzgerald is staying in chicago.

maybe durbin and obama are part of the conspiracy

[Truth2Tell]

dupe

[Truth2Tell]

67. Thank you McCammy. K&R

The timing of this stinks. And Fitz has stunk for a while.

You know you're on to something when the DU conformity trolls swarm your post.

[IsItJustMe]

168. Sheep are like that.

[madrchsod]

71. well that was a complete waste of time reading this mess

your paranoia is showing through out your post.

[DallasNE]

73. I Always Look Back To The Scooter Libby Jury

For insight into Fitzgerald's handling of a hot-potato case. That jury unloaded on Fitzgerald for not going after Libby for the more serious charges and not charging either Rove or Cheney. At the time I said that Fitz was more interested in protecting his job than bringing the Plame leakers to justice. I believe time has borne this out to be true.

I haven't followed the Blago case that closely but it seems that some of the early leaks reflected third party conversations that if carried out would be criminal. I heard some tasteless language and a few odds and ends that show Blago to be a jerk.

[femrap]

74. Great post...

I watched Patrick on c-span give his lengthy indignation over the gov. He certainly didn't that enthused over Treason by W and Shooter. I was shocked actually. He was emotional...the antithesis when he worked the Plame Case.

And don't tell me that the repugnants don't do the same thing when seats become available.

I don't trust Patrick...he was very disappointing when our country might have been saved. And he's not cute either. I remember people saying how cute he was...get your eyes tested.

[chimpymustgo]

103. Great post by you, femrap!

[JDPriestly]

157. The extent of corruption among Republicans has been far more

serious than the Blagojevich case. Blagojevich was so obvious. I cannot believe that any politician would have been foolish enough to respond to his obviously criminal requests. The sale of offices happens, but it usually takes place at lower levels of our government -- appointments to more obscure positions. And corrupt politicians are usually more subtle and secretive in their dealings. How many people did Blagojevich approach with his requests? Or did he just discuss possible acts with an aide? That was never clear to me.

[Whisp]

76. too much to read. but gut says to me Fitz is an asshole

He did not have to do the drama cat shit he did with Blago

He was being unprofesssional, like with the Scooter thing and sand in his eyes.
Fake.

[WeDidIt]

86. Bullshit

He had no choice but to play up the case in the public.

IT was either that or a tainted Senaotr appointment.

He chose America.

[muriel_volestrangler]

166. No, that's ridiculous

Filing charges against a governor is big news. That's all it took to get everyone to notice, and for it to be the top story. That would be enough to stop Blagojevich appointing someone.

But the comments by Fitzgerald in public run the risk of prejudicing jury members, according to the former federal prosecutor who wrote the NYT opinion piece. He had no need to make them, or to present his case in such detail to the public (and thus potential jury members). It's as if he's made his opening courtroom speech, but without the defense lawyer able to reply.

[IsItJustMe]

169. Yep, he is a real stand up kind of guy. I will take your word for it.

[Skidmore]

82. A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician---R or D.

Blago is no one to defend. The sooner Dems learn to drop people like Blago without hesitation, the more integrity we have as a party and the sounder our governance will be. Bush. Ney. Stevens. Traficant. They are all part of the same problem.

Sorry. No hero worship of Fitzgerald, but this Blago needs to be put away. What he did was a crime.

[Enrique]

83. Blago's a crook

Fitz is slowly cleaning up Illinois. Before him, crooks generally got a pass.

[WeDidIt]

89. Next up, Richard M. Daley. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

87. There's another possibility: The indictment was rushed to prevent the seating of a tainted Senator.

Which wouldn't make Fitz a 'hero', necessarily, but it would make him someone with a decent amount of respect for our governmental institutions. Great, let's have a tainted Senator, then the GOP can spend months upon months ignoring the country's pressing problems while they demand that the 'illegitimate Senator from Illinois' be 'dealt with'. Any fallout from this being broken now would be fifty bajillion times worse if it happened 3 months from now. That situation would be far worse for the working poor in Illinois and elsewhere. Give the FOX NEWS crowd something to outrage about, endlessly, at least until 2010 or beyond.

Since this is happening now, we can get rid of Blago and move on without a whole ton of collateral damage to people who had nothing to do with the guy.

I'm not Ronald Reagan, and this isn't the Republican Party, so I will speak ill of a Democrat if he's a sleazebucket, and Blago is a sleazebucket. My family members in the Chicago area have been saying that for years, I haven't been paying all that much attention...

but they're right. Dude is a crook.

[JDPriestly]

158. As someone wisely pointed out, had Fitzgerald waited until

someone took the bait, he would have had more people to charge. What is more, a senator who was appointed because of a pay-off would be guilty of bribery. No, acting so swiftly was not such a smart thing.

[earth mom]

88. Fitz is NOT a hero to me. And I do NOT trust him. nt

[pjt7]

92. Fitzgerald failed America when

he turned up a perjury conviction for Libby. Talk about arresting a Jay-walker when a murder was committed.

The case was "who" outed her. Those criminals were never gotten @ by Fitz. The higest form of treason was commited & all he got our of the prosecution was one guy who lied.

What a shame.

[earth mom]

128. The entire thing does not pass the smell test & makes me wonder exactly who Fitz is working for. nt

[Danger Mouse]

129. Blago is an honest man! It's a conspiracy!

[acmavm]

104. Fitz is Fitz and I'm still asking questions. After the Libby fiasco, I figured

out that the man was not all he was cracked up to be. In fact, his reputation was built on the hopes and dreams of Americans who thought that certain laws and rules of civilized behavior could not be bent or broken. This administration has broken every damn one including the outing of a ageny of our intelligence community. Anybody ever wonder if anyone died as a result of this bit of nastiness? Anyone ever look into whether or not any on-going intelligence operations were comprimised because of this?

Fitz is no big deal. Maybe he's feeling neglected and lonesome and his particular type of attention deficit disorder has become uncontrollable and he can't control the need for some face-time with the media.

[The Backlash Cometh]

105. McCamy, in your estimation, what Democrat could do as good a job

as Patrick Fitzgerald?

[NashVegas]

107. Wonderful OP, McCamy

Thanks for taking the time to put it together and share.

What's going on in Illinois right now resembles a political equivalent to Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," just as the Spitzer case did.

[ProSense]

108. Blagojevich was Stevens

waiting to happen

[glowing]

109. There's no doubt that Blogo is a snake. But I expected Fitz's investigation

would have been more substantial than what he came to the press with.. and I would have expected a Grand Jury idictment. I think it is rather strange that one day Blogo says he will pull ALL state business with BoA, and the next he's a human scum selling the Senate seat. Politics has always been about who's scratching who and what kind of deals can be made. Fitz would have had a better case if Blago actually sold the seat and had connections showing the sale. People were looking at the Chicago workers as heros.. and were actually the thing I beleive that turned many people's minds on the Big 3 getting the money.. when you see and hear the people who it effects, then you realize its stupid to deny Americans help.. that's what we do. We are humans; we are compassionate.. corporations make us greedy..

[MasonJar]

111. It is pretty obvious that Blago is some kind of nutcase, but that does

not excuse or explain why a professional prosecutor would make such over the top statements to the press. And for an investigation that has been going on for years, why the big plunge now? Some very good queries here, McCamy. Thanks for bringing them to the front. The media of course is loving the whole scenario because it can keep the wires hot without doing any real work.

[Uncle Joe]

112. I always thought it was a cosmic coincidence that Fitzgerald made his announcement

on the same day, President Elect Obama and Vice President Elect Biden were meeting with Al Gore in Chicago to discuss energy, environmental etc. policy.

Any substantial news coverage of the potential impact from that meeting was quickly overshadowed by D.A. stoked publicity from the premature culmination of a sting investigation.

This seemed like political timing to me.

Some posters claim this prevented a "tainted" Senator from being appointed and yet if the sting had been carried out, Blagojevich's choices would've been rejected.

If the investigation had been exposed prematurely by Democrats as a means to protect the party or Republicans putting pressure on Fitzgerald from above, Blagojevich would be in the same hot water he's in today and his power would've been stripped from him.

Thanks for the thread, McCamy Taylor.

[chill_wind]

115. " An Open Letter To Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald" (John Dean, 2005)

No one can read this one and still think of the man as a "hero.."

Dean has written about this miserable failure elsewhere in a few of his pieces, as well.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051118.html

[McCamy Taylor]

134. Brilliant analysis by John Dean. Quote below. Everything that bothers me about Fitz-Plame

It was well understood at the Nixon White House, and it surely is at the Bush White House, that government attorneys do not look to prosecute those for whom they work. We knew that career government lawyers simply were not going to be looking for crimes at the White House -- not because they acted with corrupt intent, but simply because it is no one's instinct to bite the hand that feeds them.

When Archibald Cox was appointed special counsel -- under pressure from the U.S. Senate as a condition to confirm Attorney General Elliot Richardson -- he immediately recognized what had occurred. While no Department of Justice lawyer was found to have engaged in the cover up, their timidity had facilitated it. Cox was fired because he refused to be intimidated. His firing became a badge of honor for all those who do the right thing, regardless of the consequences.

While I have no reason to believe you are easily intimidated, all I can say is that your investigation, thus far, is falling precisely within the narrow confines -- the formula procedure -- that was relied upon in the first phase of the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon administration.

The mistake which the left made was in tolerating any special prosecutor named from the Bush DOJ---which we all knew was the most corrupt body in the most corrupt administration ever in this nation's history. While Fitz may not be the most corrupt attorney in that corrupt body, working in a climate of corruption can not fail to have affected the quality of his work, since he has lacked for appropriate leadership. No prosecutor, dependent as they are upon the goodwill of the executive branch for career advancement and for the opportunity to ply their craft and single minded in their focus on convicting someone of anything, can be allowed to work without some kind of check and balance from above.

Luckily, Obama will provide that necessary check and balance. His DOJ will be an agency which enforces the law fairly, in order to protect the people, not a Mafia style enforcement good squad as the DOJ has been under Bush. I am sorry to say that the only honorable role anyone can have served in the DOJ under Bush-Cheney is the role of whistleblower.

[msskwesq]

119. As a defense attorney I was shocked by Fitz's actions

Fitzgerald's rush to arrest Blago was really shocking and his press conference was unprofessional/unethical. He may have tainted any jury pool with his remarks about "political crime sprees" and "Lincoln rolling in his grave." It was just way over the top. I too, immediately questioned his motives (and that of the Bush Justice Department that appointed him). As for the complaint made public, there seems to be a lot of talk and bloviating by Blago et al, but a conspiracy? Clearly Blago is a schmuck, and most of Illinois was more than ready to dump the jerk,but did he break the law? I think that is what the Grand Jury is suppose to determine, not the AUSA on his own. I think a lot of the press (ironically here)are missing a big issue - that of Sam Zell, the owner of the Tribune Media Company, which includes the Chicago Tribune, WGN-TV, WGN-radio,several Chicago suburban papers,the Chicago Cubs, Wrigley Field, L.A. Times, Baltimore Sun,etc. He is a billionaire financier, who has leveraged the Tribune Company to a very dangerous level. He recently announced he was taking the company into bankruptcy due to not being able to make loan payments. Mr. Zell and his staff have been in cooperation with Fitzgerald and are on the tapes. The fact that there was a longtime, ongoing deal between Zell and Blago regarding the sale of Wrigley Field to the state is an important point that is not discussed in the press or the internet much. (remember first lady,Patty B. being quoted as saying "fuck them" saying they should kill the deal on Wrigley...) Zell was in the middle of a huge deal with Blago, if Blago was always looking for a bribe, I am sure Zell was offering. Blago obviously overstepped, or the threat to stop the deal, in light of the bankruptcy of the Tribune Company, sent Zell to the Feds. I see some vindictiveness on Zell's part,or ass covering or both. Something is definitely up with this aspect of this story and it smells. The Tribune for some days before the arrest, carried stories that seemed odd to me, the most notable was the story of Blago's good friend and lobbyist, wore a wire. (He denies doing so)
Even though the Tribune endorsed Obama, Zell personally endorsed McCain. He is a Republican through and through. Fitz is a pawn of the Repubs it seems to me. He let the Plame case slip through his fingers, where treason went unchecked even when the evidence was clearly there. His lack of follow through allowed a multi-billion dollar war that was based on that treason, to continue to this day, claiming thousands of innocent lives. He certainly did not go after the Bush White House and its role in treason with the same hysteria he has gone after Blago. Why?
Blago is a way to discredit Obama. The Republicans want to destroy Obama, maybe prevent his taking office. At the very least they want to cast a cloud over Obama so that in 2010 they can take back Congress and in 2012 they can take back the White House. Our government will collapse if we allow these power mad, right wing thugs from pushing their far right agenda. They will stop at nothing.
Fitz is a nice guy, but a hero, or even non-partisan? No way.

[NashVegas]

123. Do You Believe There Is Even An Intent to Bring Blago To Trial?

Considering the press conference and subsequent national dialog, they'd have to bring the trial to Chiapas to get a jury that hasn't heard about it.

[McCamy Taylor]

136. I know politics, not the law, but I say this was another Eliot Spitzer--a political stunt.

A year from now everyone at DU will pretend that they never called for Blago to resign and that they never ever thought that he was guilty of all the charges that are being leveled against him and that they always thought that the timing was fishy, the way that you can not find anyone now who will admit that they fell for the DOJ lies about Spitzer spending public funds for his call girl when there was never any evidence of this (his dad is a friggin billionaire). Or the way that no one will admit that they ever called Siegelman a scumbag politician who had it coming, even though you can do a google and find people at DU posting just that when he was indicted.

Unfortunately, Americans are very naive. In Europe, people know that the government indicts innocent people all the time, but here, if you are arrested you are probably guilty and if you are indicted you are definitely guilty to most people, even a fair number of progressives. Until we can convince people otherwise, the elite class will have a powerful weapon to stop the revolution, since prosecutorial discretion allows them to persecute anyone.

[IsItJustMe]

170. I hear you. Some folks are like sheep and in their self righteous indignation they are easy to

manipulate and will jump on the band wagon, given the first opportunity. Blago is not a saint, but then, to me it is relative. I have to ask the question, compared to what?

Some of the people that want to hang this guy are kind of scary. They seem to carry the same Republican gene that sees the world in black and white.

There is much more to this than meets the eye. I don't know if I have the patience or comprehension to understand it all. But I will tell you this. Thank you for this post. For what life has taught me is that the truth will never be found in the conventional wisdom.

[D-Lee]

179. Good points! See also this article about the problems with a "rush to judgment"

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202426769032

As well as the NY Times article linked in this DU post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x409243

Don't think that this situation is like one of those TV polls where one votes for guilty or
not guilty.

There are a lot of serious questions involved -- and, although the Ill. Gov. looks like an idiot, one needs to know a great deal more ...

[D-Lee]

120. Well written -- another suspect motivation is a special election to elect a Repub

The point in the post is well taken.

What is pointed out is that an experienced prosecutor went well beyond accepted limits on prosecutorial comment on a pending case. So, given that odd behavior, what could be the motivation?

The clearest consequence is instant derailment of the Ill. Gov. (a Democrat).

The post inquires what might have motivated that end. Bank of America is a possible source of pressure. There could also be a desire to change the method of filling the vacant Senatorial seat to prevent a Democrat being appointed to it -- which would happen if one could build up enthusiasm for revising the "seat filling" option to require a special election, which would give a Republican a shot at it (especially with the background of a Democratic scandal).

The post opens up the debate about the motivation behind the odd prosecutorial behavior, which certainly raises the spectre of an inability to secure a fair trial. The post is well documented by an authoritative opinion on prosecturial press announcements, which gives strong support to the central contention that someone should look beyond mere appearances.

And, by the way, what WAS the basis for the wiretap? It sounds like the tap started before the Senate seat became vacant ... So, was the wire tap just to troll for incriminating information of any sort? Was this a happy accident or a witch hunt? On the Chicago Tribune thing, there were already witnesses and no need for a wire tap is what it sounds like.

As to the conduct, the charge can only be an attempt, since the actions did not come to fruition.

More facts will and should become known, which is the point of the post.

Nice job!

[Exultant Democracy]

122. "Look at the results of the Plame case, which made his name and fortune." Fortune? I think not

the guy isn't in private practice, I think you are off your rocker.

[Nye Bevan]

176. Oh, you didn't hear about the $5 million bonus he got for Libby's conviction?

That was part of his deal going in. And then of course there was the $3 million advance on the book he wrote afterwards.

:eyes:

Actually, I gave up on the original post right there, which saved me a lot of time.

[ColesCountyDem]

127. As Dr. Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Gov. "Pay to Play" has finally been caught red-handed. Just because it was Fitzgerald who caught him doesn't make this some sort of RW conspiracy. I'm a committeeman of some 20+ years, and last time I almost gagged when I was canvassing for Blagojevich. To paraphrase someone whose name I can't recall at the moment, "I think he's a rotten, thieving, corrupt son of a bitch, and I have a higher opinion of him than most people".

:evilgrin:

[McCamy Taylor]

140. This dualistic thinking has no place in the law. No matter how "slimy" a person they must be guilty

of the crime with which they are charged and the evidence against them must be collected in a legal manner and they must be tried in a court of law in the prescribed manner. I am not a lawyer, but I know that it is our legal system that keeps us free.

What I have been seeing posted here at DU this past week is basically Blago is a scumbag that no one liked and we are all sure that he is guilty of something, so he should he punished and removed from office.

That is lynch mob mentality

When I try to point this out, people claim that I am cutting slack for Bush and Cheney, but that is not the same thing at all. There are mountains of evidence against Bush and Cheney. Plenty of legal experts have made the cases against Bush and Cheney in books, online, on television. They have been tried and convicted in surrogate courts over and over, since they will never see the inside of a real court, the same way that some of history's worst mass murderers like Stalin are tried by history. They can be tried, because their infamy and the wealth of knowledge about them makes it easy to study them.

None of us knows enough about Blago and the details of this case to judge it at this moment. This I don't like him, no sirree, so he must be guilty is a very American phenomenon, and it is exploited by the corporate class to bring down political leaders, civil rights leaders, union leaders and others whom they want eliminated.

Engels was exactly right. Americans rely too much on emotion and experience in making political decisions and they do not trust their reason and political theory. If we used the last two more, maybe we would already have national health insurance, paid maternity leave, equal education and clean air and water.

[ColesCountyDem]

162. You misunderstand my post, I think.

I don't have a 'lynch mob mentality' about this situation-- far from it. As a lifelong Democrat, what has happened is a nightmare for our party; it will make it much more difficult for us to one of our own as governor next time, at a minimum. Any way...

The point I was trying to make (and may have made poorly, I'll concede) is that Rod has been charged, and at least part of the evidence collected appears to show a clear attempt on his part to benefit monetarily. The appearance of such impropriety is almost as bad as actual *proof* of the same, politically.

The other point I tried to make is that while I wasn't exactly thrilled about helping him get a second term, I did do so, so please keep that in mind when reading what I wrote.

Thanks.

:hi: :dem:

[JDPriestly]

135. McCamy Taylor,

You beat me to the punch.

I was going to post something on this today.

My points: 1) Fitzgerald allowed Bush and Rove (and Cheney?) to make statements in interviews, not under oath and apparently without transcripts. No attorney, not even in a civil case, would make that stupid mistake. Why? Because an attorney's questions give away his strategy. It is important to get your witness' first response to a query. The whole idea is to get a candid answer. The witness is allowed to have an attorney present, and the attorney may object and thereby delay the answer or even bar the question, but the question does not get asked unless the witness is going to answer under oath. It is a matter of protecting your strategy and surprising the witness.

So, Patrick Fitzgerald either made a huge strategic mistake when he allowed key witnesses to respond to questions without being under oath -- or he was purposely throwing his case.

In conjunction with this, if rumor is to be believed, Rove was apparently allowed to change his testimony. Now, it is normal that a witness can revise or amend a deposition transcript, but witnesses are usually advised at the beginning of a deposition that changes in the transcript can be used against them later.

Yet Fitzgerald said in a letter sent to Waxman in July that the interviews he conducted with Bush and Cheney in 2004 were not protected by grand jury secrecy rules and could arguably be turned over to Congress if authorized by the Justice Department. I quote from http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/34714

Moreover, Fitzgerald said that in his capacity as special counsel he did not enter into a pre-arranged agreement with the White House to keep secret Bush and Cheney’s interview transcripts.

“I can advise you that as to any interviews of either the President or Vice President not protected by the rules of grand jury secrecy, there were no "agreements, conditions and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation" and either the President or Vice President "regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews,” Fitzgerald’s July 3 letter addressed to Waxman says.
. . . .

Note that Fitzgerald speaks of "interviews." I do not recall that Clinton was allowed to just give interviews when facing civil claims. Why should Bush and his aides have been granted that privilege. Fitzgerald should have taken that to the court.


2) As Scott McClellan recently informed us, Bush took responsibility for the declassification of the NIE which lead to and covered up the outing of Plame. After how many months of investigating the Plame matter are we to believe that Fitzgerald failed to find out that crucial fact? That he did not inquire as to whether the declassification of that NIE was part of the cover up of the outing of Plame? Or did Fitzgerald decide that there was no crime beyond Libby's perjury after he learned Bush's role in the whole matter and just not inform the public?

From a report by Empty Wheel of portions of a transcript of McClellan

Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.
. . . .
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/05/29/george-bush-authorized-the-leak-of-valerie-wilsons-identity/

3) And why wasn't there a more thorough investigation of the role of Richard Armitage? Why was he allowed to just assist in the leak without impunity? And if he did not know that Plame's role at the CIA was classified, how did he learn what he learned about her and her tie to the CIA? Fitzgerald never seemed to care much about Armitage who either had the clearance to know about her and betrayed her to Woodward or did not have the clearance and obtained the information from some source that betrayed her. There is still something murky here.

4) And you are absolutely right about stopping the Blagojevich investigation before it was really ripe. The Senate has the last word on the qualification of its members and you can believe it that it would not approve the seating of member who bought his or her seat. Also, any politician who bought a seat in the Senate that blatantly would be guilty of bribery and would go to jail, not the Senate. So this should have been allowed to continue. Who or what was Fitzgerald protecting?

I think he protected certain witnesses in the Plame case, and I think he was protecting people in this case.

Finally, I wish someone would look into this behavior by some other politicians. There is an article in the L.A. Times today about Schwarzenegger's fundraising. It is shocking. Of course, he doesn't have to be so vulgar about it since he made his personal millions, dare I say billions being vulgar in movies and for scandal magazines.

[McCamy Taylor]

141. Thanks! I had forgotten about Bush-Cheney testifying w/o being under oath.

You have a great memory for details. That was incredibly surreal. What is the point of having a special prosecutor if they turn around and kiss their bosses' asses like that?

[bottomtheweaver]

142. I'm shocked, shocked to find politicking going on here.

However this turns out, it's going to leave a stink on whoever gets appointed to that seat, and Jesse Jackson Jr's very promising political career may well be over. No, Fitz is no champeen of us regular folks. Thanks for a very interesting analysis.

[McCamy Taylor]

143. JJJ is another thing that bothers me. For all we know, Sam Zell offered the $$$ "for JJJ"

that Fitz is now parading in front of the MSM as a public trial/conviction/career ending move. I have heard people on MSNBC laugh and say that JJJ will never rise any higher than the House now after this. After what? All we know for sure is that some one offered money in his name. How do we know that it was not an FBI agent doing a sting? Or a rich businessman out to smear a Democrat? Or Zell? It could even have been someone who has given money to JJJ in the past, but that does not mean that JJJ knew anything about it or that he would ever have known anything about it. Maybe he is too virtuous a candidate to agree to stuff like that, so his backers planned to cut a secret deal.

For that, the GOP gets to ruin a prominent Black Democrat? This is the same as assassination but with no bullet.

Where is the outrage at DU? As long as people can convince themselves that it has not touched Obama and Michelle yet, they will toss every other Democrat to the wolves---until there is no one left to work with Obama.

[bottomtheweaver]

144. Bulletless assassination, good term.

Yes it's hard to see how he'd get the seat at this point and he did seem like a likely choice. It wouldn't surprise me if he was the immediate target of the whole operation, though it also seems like the beginning of another Whitewater-type permanent scandal.

[Jakes Progress]

173. The outrage at DU

has become laser focused. Don't tread on Obama and bash bush. Both of those are worthy focuses, but they are all consuming. No matter the merits of the piece or the sagacity of the action, if someone says something bad about bush or even hints so, he is a god regardless of his motive or other actions. He is given a pass on anything. Similarly, if someone voices a concern about some action by the PE, he is a devil to be scourged regardless of motive and prior or subsequent action. Anything he does is tainted.

It has always reminded me of high school football mentality. Because there is a contest on the field once a year, that school over there is evil incarnate. The students at that school are the stupid and nasty. Their whole town or neighborhood is fair target for vandalism and disdain.

So Fitz made some effort in the Plame affair. From a contingent here at DU, that exempts him from any complaints for the rest of his life. Logic and reasoning don't enter into it. Why Blago now? Why not Plame? Why not Perry. Besides his pandering to the panderers, there is his unholy deal to transfer millions of tax dollars directly into a sorry reading program owned by relatives of bush by mandating that schools only receive money when they us it to buy that product. Millions were wasted and children were harmed by losing years of development. Not a peep from Fitz about this republican governor.

[Catherine Vincent]

159. I know this is about Patrick Fitzgerald but you have to admit,

Blago pressuring the CEO of Children's Memorial Hospital to contribute $50K to his campaign or else he would withhold the annual $8 million in state money to fund the hospital has got to be the lowest of the low.

[McCamy Taylor]

160. No. the lowest of the low was the cover up of child sexual abuse at the Texas Youth Facilty

by Gov. Rick Perry and Alberto Gonzales so that Perry could withstand a challenge from the right during the 2006 elections. Pedophiles were allowed to assume positions of power at other facilities so that no scandal would taint the Perry administration before the election.

When the DOJ under Gonzales concluded that the children were not really raped by the adults that ran the facility, because they did not sustain permanent bodily harm from the sexual intercourse and they did fight back and they might even have experienced orgasm and therefore no crime was committed that the feds could prosecute, that was a low day indeed.

I hope all the pedophiles out there hear this. If the children have a good time and do not resist, you are home free under Gonzo and Bush. So, just give them lots of toys and make sure they climax.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

165. Fitzgerald's legacy to me : Throwing sand in the umpire's eyes WORKS

He said the investigation was stymied by the throwing of sand in the umpire's eyes.

If you're an umpire and people are throwing sand in your eyes, isn't it your duty to remove them from the game and also to find out who gave them the sand and who ordered the throwing of the sand? And if the potential co-conspirators won't talk, isn't it your job to make sure that they're taken out of the game as well for the simple fact that they are uncooperative?

I think Fitzgerald had an impressive array of legal thumbscrews he could have employed if he had any real interest in getting to the bottom of the Plame case, but he chose not to. He settled for a single aspen even though they were all rooted together and then he went out and bought himself some eyewash.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

177. kick because I'm vain and don't want my comment to end discussion. nt

[TexasObserver]

178. Fitzgerald blew the biggest case of the century, badly.

He was terrible, just absolutely useless in the Plame prosecution. You could put the names of all the prosecutors in America in a hat, draw any one of them out, and you'd have a better prosecution that Fitz accomplished in the Plame matter.

He was pathetic.

The hero worship of him is largely attributable to those who are simply not very well informed.