Patrick Fitzgerald Chosen As U.S. Attorney Over Rove Pressure
Patrick Fitzgerald Chosen As U.S. Attorney Over Rove Pressure
Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) revealed yesterday that Karl Rove pressured him in 2001 to choose a U.S. Attorney who he believed would be lenient in probing state corruption, the Chicago Tribune reports. Fitzgerald ended up choosing Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), who was later named Special Prosecutor in the CIA leak case.
From the Tribune:
[Rove told Sen. Fitzgerald] in the spring of 2001 that he should limit his choice for U.S. attorney in Chicago to someone from Illinois.
According to Fitzgerald, who was determined to bring in a prosecutor from outside the state, Rove “just said we don’t want you going outside the state. We don’t want to be moving U.S. attorneys around.”
Fitzgerald said he believes Rove was trying to influence the selection in reaction to pressure from Rep. Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the House, and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.
Fitzgerald said he announced his choice, Patrick Fitzgerald, a New Yorker, on May 13, a Mother’s Day Sunday, to pre-empt any opposition.
According to Peter Fitzgerald, a year or so later, Karl Rove “said to me that Fitzgerald appointment got great headlines for you, but it ticked off the base.” Peter Fitzgerald said he believes the “base” was Illinois Republican insiders “upset at the prosecutor’s assault on corruption.”
Little did Rove know that Fitzgerald would be ticking him and the White House off two years later.
(HT: TP reader Linda)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
106 Responses to “Patrick Fitzgerald Chosen As U.S. Attorney Over Rove Pressure”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can then Fitz be be regarded as Comey's revenge?
March 14th, 2007 at 1:36 pmNow why on earth would Rove want an attorney lenient in probing state corruption?
I know, so there would be more time to execute the will of the people and uphold the oath taken to office. I see.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThe "N" word is not too strong for these jack-booted thugs. They are Nazis.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pmMore assumptions put out by TP. You guys are on a roll this week. Personally, I would want someone from within my State to get a job WITHIN my state. You folks get all upset when we outsource jobs unless it doesn't suit you. This man really made a huge stretch and is obviously trying to get "headlines" which TP happily provided even though it was obviously his plan. Weak IMO.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pmThat'll teach 'em...
...or will it?
...we need to go and get some more of that WH a*s!
March 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI like Fitzy more every time I hear something new about him.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:44 pmI have no problem with this, just as I had no problem when Carter, Reagan, and Clinton made political decision for, God forbid, political offices.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThe Republican Revolution is eating itself. Not contenet with demonizing and attacking liberals and Democrats the Bush/Rove/Cheney cultists are now attacking rock-ribbed Republicans who have the temerity to question the doctrine of total obedience to the B-R-C Cult.
The USA's are all Republicans and even Fitz is a conservative guy.
Keep on eating yourselves, you're becoming The Donner Party.
-GSD
March 14th, 2007 at 1:48 pmLet's all hope Fitz can visit Rove again sometime w/Rove under oath.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:49 pmPersonally, I would want someone from within my State to get a job WITHIN my state.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Yeah, right, Roger. This is exactly what you would have thought up and written even if you hadn't just read that Rove came up with this weird non-excuse.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pmWow this is news!...LOL
March 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pmFor all the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."
Hi, Roger.
If it seems TP is on a roll, it's probably because it's been a bad week--I mean month--er, I mean term--for the Bushies and loyal 30-percenters like you.
The country is waking up. Let the roll continue!
March 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pmI loves me some Fitz.
No wonder they tried to keep him out. He's sooooo good. :-)
March 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pmGSD:
Last I checked, only 8 of 93 U.S. Attorneys were replaced midterm. Clinton had the same number.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#9 - Let’s all hope Fitz can visit Rove again sometime w/Rove under oath.
Wouldn't THAT be ironic? :) :) :)
March 14th, 2007 at 1:54 pmPeter Fitzgerald (R) was a maverick type of Senator in Illinois; he didn't always play the rules. He has since left politics.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pmHe appointed Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) as noted.
The party was unhappy because there was a huge scandal over the then-Governor George Ryan, going back to when Ryan was Sec. of State (bribery, corruption, etc.) for which Ryan has subsequently been found guilty. Fitzgerald prosecuted that case. Now we see Fitzgerald having prosecuted the Libby case but was stopped short in prosecuting Cheney (as we all believe was his intention).
I am sure that Rove has shouted more than once, "I told you so" "I knew Fitzgerald would be a problem."
Don't forget that Fitzgerald convicted GOP Illinois Governor George Ryan on a slew of charges.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pm#4 Roger...
March 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pmmaybe if you read the article slowly... and out loud it will make more sense to you. Maybe.
Explains why Rove wasn't indicted. Or Cheney.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:55 pmSo far, I have found at least 55 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate who left office before completion of their four-year terms, between 1976 and 2006 (for now, not counting those whose tenure was interrupted by a change in presidential administration or these latest eight). Of those 55, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive
branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died, and 15 left to enter or return to private practice.
At the urging of Rep. Joshua Eilberg, President Carter fired David Marston, who was the U.S. Attorney investigating alleged kickbacks at the Hahneman Hospital in Philadelphia in which Eilberg and fellow Democratic Rep. Daniel Flood later pled guilty.
Were there "political" reasons for any of those?
Here's a full Report: http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
March 14th, 2007 at 1:58 pmSmall miracles for having Fitz.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm[...] tip: Nico Pitney, Think Progress) posted 03/14/07 at 11:00 am View blog reactions [print ] [email [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 1:59 pm"I have no problem with this, just as I had no problem when Carter, Reagan, and Clinton made political decision for, God forbid, political offices"
Right, Jake. That's the best you guys can ever come up with when the facts are plain to see. You shrug and say "Libruls do it, too." ;)
Only it's getting harder for you guys, isn't it? You are so used to employing any means to an end, that you can't be bothered to actually accept any accountability--even when doing so would help your own party.
Conservatives?
See, in this case is that it was republican attorneys who were fired for not stepping-up the prosecution of Bush's enemies. What do you think about that?
Fact: you Bushies no longer speak for the republican party. You've fired almost everyone there is is to fire. So, don't whine and blame us for enjoying the sight of you guys trip over your own scapegoats.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pmIt is customary for an incoming president of a different party to change personnel. No news there. What is news is that Bush changed personnel when there was no change of president or party, and did so with the new wrinkle = Senate confirmation would not be necessary.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:03 pmHe was able to remove attorneys who didn't alter their docket to prosecute Democrats, or who didn't alter their dockets to delay prosecuting Republicans, or who successfully prosecuted a Republican like Cunningham. He replaced them with attorneys who were cronies, or who were involved in voter fraud in crucial states, or who would otherwise be friendly to Bush&Co.
Remember, Bush&Co knew they were in trouble after Nov. 2004 and they were frantic to stakc the deck for themselves against future subpoenas and litigation.
and let's not forget the big-ass case that pat fitzgerald has been working these past couple of years and that is now about to get underway -- conrad black and a cast of characters, including that other dark prince -- richard perle.
hasn't black been long under investigation; i wonder .....
March 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pmSo now the Pre-Programmed Rove-Bots conflate "USA's who left office" with USA's who were fired.
Propagandist sophistry.
Nice try.
Too bad that is all they have left. The people who claimed to hate Clinton for his word parsing are sticking behind Gonzales' reedy, seedy "mistakes were made" passive voice excuse.
Funny how people become what they hate.
-GSD
March 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pmMarie:
I agree that is a new wrinkle, but the Report I just provided a link to above shows it happens all the time (my point in bringing this up is not that "two wrongs make a right" but rather that no Democrats thought it was wrong when their guy was doing it). Here are just the U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations -- I am still looking into whether any were forced out based on politics:
William S. Price (1989); Frank L. McNamara, Jr. (1989); Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (1990); Patrick J. Fiedler (1991); E. Bart Daniel (1992); Dee V. Benson (1991); Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange (1994); Claude Harris Jr. (1994); Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. (1996); Joseph Preston Strom, Jr. (1996); Kendall Brindley Coffey (1996); Larry Herbert Colleton (1994); James Lamar Wiggins (1996); and Kent Barron Alexander (1997).
P.S. hypatia's father -- say "hi" to hypatia for me -- let me know if the above does not answer your questions too.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pmThis said it all right here:
THey were upset about someone who'd try to stop corruption. Disgusting.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:14 pm#25 linda
March 14th, 2007 at 2:16 pmI didn't know Perle is connected to the Conrad Black case!
Hey Rove-gots.
If everything is just AOK with what happened then why did Gonzales give a press conference admitting that "mistakes were made"?
Why are Republicans like John Ensign unhappy with what happened?
Why did George W. Bush say he is "troubled" by what happened?
If what was done was AOK why did people go in front of congress and deny what they did?
-GSD
March 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pmJake, by your definition I should be able to go out and rob a bank and commit other crimes and there should be no penalties or jail time I should have to pay because they have been committed before.
I should not face any ticket for speeding, because there are millions of people doing everyday.
By your GRADE SCHOOL logic, if it has been done before then it is legal or OK!
See that is the difference between the Republicans and Democrats..... The Repubs consider it a crime only if it has not been done before. The Dems consider it a crime no matter what!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI have no problem with this, just as I had no problem when Carter, Reagan, and Clinton made political decision for, God forbid, political offices.
Comment by Jake
Jake and fellow trolls: What you seem to be overlooking in all of this is that presidents take an oath to uphold the laws of the United States. These attorneys were fired because they were upholding those laws. Bush and the political appointees in the (in)justice department wanted to protect their crooked friends. In other words, they were violating their oaths to uphold the laws. Can we assume from your earlier statements that you think it is okay for Bush and his administration to renege on their promises and support lawbreakers?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm"Here are just the U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations — I am still looking into whether any were forced out based on politics"
you can make all the 'he did it too' arguments you want, but that won't change the fact that this administration alone [i.e., not clinton's] snuck a provision in the Patriot Act to get around the senate confirmation. this is unprecedented. this is another power-grab. and the administration obviously knew they were wrong [or that they'd been busted] because gonzales agreed earlier this week that the Patriot Act loophole be closed with new legislation.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#10 Again with the assumptions. This article says that Rove asked this man to find someone from within the State to represent the state. WOW, that sounds really sinister. All the other "assumptions" are made by you and this gentlemen looking for headlines. Just because you add assumptions to Rove asking for someone within the state certainly doesn't make them true. Just because this guy likes to find headlines with his own opinion still only goes as far as "his opinion". Your assumptions and his opinion certainly don't mean ANYTHING. Like I said in my first post, TP enjoys posting assumptions this week. Maybe next week will be "fact" week, kinda like "Shark week" on Discovery Channel. A once a year event that everyone looks forward to.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmNot at all people. I am pointing out these political appointments are done all the time because that's the way it's always been done. The bank robbery example doesn't work because that's always been illegal. What we don't have in this country are ex post facto laws.
In fact, the CRS approach in that Report above likely underestimates the number of U.S. Attorneys who departed office before completion of their four-year terms. A U.S. Attorney would not have been included in the appendix if the individual resigned (of
March 14th, 2007 at 2:27 pmhis or her own initiative or at the President’s request) before completing a four-year term, was replaced by someone appointed by a district court or the Attorney General, and the President did not make a nomination to replace the individual until after four years from the start of the resigned U.S. Attorney’s term. If, as an example from the Clinton Administration, a U.S. Attorney confirmed in 1993 was forced to resign 1996, but a nomination to replace that individual was not made until 1998, the data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual who resigned in 1996. That's why I said "at least" 55 above.
I am still looking into whether any were forced out based on politics
Just like FOX NOISE - make an accusation first (several times is best), so that it can register with people, then retract it later but without the same fanfare.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pmKarp's disciple:
I do not accept your premise that Bush violated his oath of office, just as I don't think Carter did with the example I provided from his term above.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSorry, Jake. It does not.
But, hey, don't take my word for it. Your own party disagrees with you.
Let that sink in for a moment. Your own party.
If Gonzo, Rove, et al did nothing wrong, as you suggest. Then why the mad scramble to scape-goat Gonzo's cheif of staff? Why don't they just come right out (as you have done so eloquently) and give us all a big shrug and a wink and say "everybody persecutes their political opponents so you Dems can go jump in a lake?"
Why don't they say that, Jake? Are they just not as smart as you? Why do you hate your own party, Jake? Why? ;)
March 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThis is all about the "unitary executive": power and control of the U.S. government in the hands of the President and his small group of advisors with little power to the Congress or the Courts. In other words, a kingdom.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmPLC:
Read up on President Carter firing U.S. Attorney David Marston, at the urging of Rep. Joshua Eilberg, and tell me that was NOT based on "politics".
March 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm"that’s the way it’s always been done"
wrong. [see Patriot Act]
March 14th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWhy do you hate your own party, Jake?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pmJake, you just can't face the fact that it is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you keep on with this CHILDISH "he did it so I can too" mentality???
It does not matter if it happened before! It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Besides the example you have provided only shows ONE person being fired. We are talking about much more than that!
Oh..... And for your ASSUMPTION that this is "normal", you are completely wrong!
Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson (resigned two days ago), 1/9/07:
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, 3/8/07:
Mr. Rove’s claims [last week] that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary†is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.
Former U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, 3/5/07:
However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/bush-attorneys-customary/
March 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pmO.K. then, hypatia's father, if that did not answer your questions, allow me the opportunity to take them one by one:
The above was not "hard" for me at all; let me know what exactly you are not understanding about my historical argument. I cannot speak to how "hard" it is for the rest of the guys.
Yes (although I voted for John F. Kennedy ; )
People bite the hands that feed them all the time.
I don't know. They didn't listen to me on Campaign Finance Reform either. Overall, however, I am very pleased with this Administration.
I doubt that.
I'm registered Independent. Any more questions?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:43 pm"I do not accept your premise that Bush violated his oath of office, just as I don’t think Carter did with the example I provided from his term above.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:29 pm"
REALLY?????
Does WARRENTLESS WIRE TAPPING sound familiar????
Oh, and don't spit out the talking points that it is only for terrorists..... Court documents show that Bush started this plan with AT&T in early Feburary of 2001 only 3 weeks after he entered office.
So since this was premeditated, how can you defend him????
March 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pmpgw:
I already granted that is a new wrinkle. Removing U.S. Attorneys for political considerations has always been done -- the new method of replacing them without Senate confirmation is another issue completely -- repeal that law if you don't like it.
RemoveBush:
The current Administration has never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution either. Your point?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pmYes "REALLY" RemoveBush -- since I am not a criminal, I have no problem with any of the wire-tapping programs the New York Times has revealed classified information to date -- now, catching those who leaked said information in the first place is another matter. I would never defend them.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:51 pm"repeal that law if you don’t like it."
sure, i'll get right on that.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pmAccording to former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL):
ROVE's BASE is made up of REPUBLICAN INSIDERS who are threatened at the PROSECUTION OF CORRUPTION.
Ouch! That's gotta sting!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pmpgw:
Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, right? They could vote to defund the war in Iraq TODAY (if they had the guts).
March 14th, 2007 at 2:53 pm"The current Administration has never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution either. Your point?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:47 pm"
I guess your little cave does not receive anything but FOX????
Try watching CSPAN! They were fired for "political retribution". Only one of them had the slightest mark on their record. The others were praised for their work, and one had a pilot program in his state that he helped initiate that may become a nationwide system.
Provide proof that it was not politically motivated! Show the record of thier poor service records! While your at it...... Explain why it is proper for Senator's or Congressmen to be calling them to pressure them to pursure Democrats and then when they don't they are fired....... Please by all means try and spin this as NOT being politically motivated.
tick tock..... tick tock..... tick tock.....
March 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pmHey Jake,
March 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pmCheney just called.
He told you to go F&Ck yourself.
:)
Does everyone remember how much trouble Janet Reno made for Clinton during her tenure as AG?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:55 pmShe was independent - politics didn't enter into her judgment - whether or not you approve of what she did, she was a thron in Clinton's side. And so it should be.
"#47
Yes “REALLY†RemoveBush — since I am not a criminal, I have no problem with any of the wire-tapping programs the New York Times has revealed classified information to date — now, catching those who leaked said information in the first place is another matter. I would never defend them.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:51 pm"
So you then support a president that BREAKS HIS OATH OF OFFICE????? (To uphold the laws of the Constitution) Someone who only WEEKS after getting into office started setting up these monitoring rooms, but could not stop 9/11. Then used 9/11 to forward all his other CRIMINAL acts????
Your perfectly OK with this???
By the way...... It has NOTHING to do with you being a CRIMINAL! It has to do with the Constitution..... Something YOU obviously DO NOT CARE ABOUT!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo may we now procede with this item as a legitimate investigation, worthy of criminal violation? It certainly smacks of that intent, to me. This one scandal could well round up the whole, law-breaking bunch. The prosecutor wouldn't even have to cut any deals; the dots connect themselves.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pmRemoveBush:
How about you pick one that was fired, and I will point to their performance issues -- just like Carter had "performance issues" for the U.S. Attorney he fired at the urging of a Congressman who just happened to be a target as well. Again, if it wasn't wrong back then, how could it be wrong now?
Zimzone:
Thanks for the info (you've never heard of Hillary Clinton cursing, I take it?).
March 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pmLast I checked, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, right? They could vote to defund the war in Iraq TODAY (if they had the guts).
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007
Dems have a majority in the House all right, but their one-vote majority in the Senate does not give them ability to pass anything. Some Repugs would have to go along and between their desperation to retain power and the innate corruption within their ranks, added to the majority having blind worship for Bush, there is not much that is going to pass easily and funding the war is among them.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pm"Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, right? They could vote to defund the war in Iraq TODAY (if they had the guts).
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:53 pm"
Really?????
Try COUNTING the people in the Senate!!!! They only have ONE vote for the majority. You make it sound as though what ever they say is what is to happen, much like it was under the Republicans.......
Unfortunately, the Dems are a bit more tactful and believe in democracy. So even if they could get the bill to the floor, they don't have enough votes to defeat a veto.
Your just not that bright are you?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:59 pmI do NOT support any President breaking his oath of office. You and I simply disagree whether THIS President has done so.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pmHey, Jake. Thanks for pausing your fantasies of blowing up newspapers long enough to try to respond.
.K. then, hypatia’s father, if that did not answer your questions, allow me the opportunity to take them one by one:
That’s the best you guys can ever come up with when the facts are plain to see. You shrug and say “Libruls do it, too.†;) Only it’s getting harder for you guys, isn’t it?
The above was not “hard†for me at all; let me know what exactly you are not understanding about my historical argument. I cannot speak to how “hard†it is for the rest of the guys.
It is hard for you to blame liberals in this case, because both republicans and democrats are crying foul. (shrug) Not sure what was so hard to understand about what was meant by hard or why it deserves scare quotes.
Conservatives?
Yes (although I voted for John F. Kennedy ; )
Who cares? Really.
See, in this case is that it was republican attorneys who were fired for not stepping-up the prosecution of Bush’s enemies. What do you think about that?
People bite the hands that feed them all the time.
Actually, Jake, they don't. That's why it's news when they do. (Think hard on this one instead of just typing what feels good.)
If Gonzo, Rove, et al did nothing wrong, as you suggest. Then why the mad scramble to scape-goat Gonzo’s cheif of staff? Why don’t they just come right out (as you have done so eloquently) and give us all a big shrug and a wink and say “everybody persecutes their political opponents so you Dems can go jump in a lake?†Why don’t they say that, Jake?
I don’t know. They didn’t listen to me on Campaign Finance Reform either. Overall, however, I am very pleased with this Administration.
Are they just not as smart as you?
I doubt that.
Why do you hate your own party, Jake? Why?
I’m registered Independent. Any more questions?
You are a Bushie. Independent Bushie? Who cares? So's Bill O'Reilly. A rose by any other name...
March 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm"Last I checked, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, right? They could vote to defund the war in Iraq TODAY (if they had the guts)."
one talking point per thread please.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:01 pm#47... since I am not a criminal, I have no problem with any of the wire-tapping programs
Think of your words before you become so flip--
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
March 14th, 2007 at 3:03 pmand by that time no one was left to speak up.
"I do NOT support any President breaking his oath of office. You and I simply disagree whether THIS President has done so."
so sneaking a last minute provision [or a "wrinkle" as you quaintly put it] into the Patriot Act is ok with you? i guess it is considering that this administration thinks it's a good idea to force out an a.g. in the middle of an investigation that led to an indictment on the #3 in the c.i.a., and you think it's ok.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pmThen they came for the trolls,
March 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pmand I didn't speak up because I was glad to see them go.
#64
March 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmLOL
"How about you pick one that was fired, and I will point to their performance issues — just like Carter had “performance issues†for the U.S. Attorney he fired at the urging of a Congressman who just happened to be a target as well. Again, if it wasn’t wrong back then, how could it be wrong now?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:58 pm"
No no no.....
I asked YOU to provide proof that they had poor performances..... I watched the hearings on CSPAN, and all 4 or 5 of the Attorney's there had EXCELLENT ratings from the DOJ.
Provide the evidence that thier firings were job performance related as you state. According to thier records and SWORN statements, they were model attorney's.
Provide the proof of what you say. I have the proof from the sworn statements and their service records provided to the Congress, where's your evidence?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm"I do NOT support any President breaking his oath of office. You and I simply disagree whether THIS President has done so.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:01 pm"
OK..... Then please provide me with the law or where in the Constitution the president has the authority to monitor DOMESTIC communications?
Please show me where the FISA court allows this without a warrant? Please show me where in the Constitution it states that a warrant is not needed? I clearly remember seeing that in there somewhere that this was required......
You can try and play it off all you want, but working with a group of people to do something that is illegal is called "conspiracy". This is a CRIME!!!
Please show me the law that allows the president to perform this action without congressional approval? This was done without congress and was done in secret. THIS IS A CRIME!
Please explain how it is not! Especially since this was at least 8 months BEFORE 9/11.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pmIs Congress going to act on this scandal? I think everyone should contact thier Representative and Senator to find out when. After all, it's the PATRIOTIC thing to do.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pmCronyism has no place in the judicial system, nor should it, EVER.
Fine, RemoveBush, if you don't want to pick one I will pick one who refused to fully investigate voter fraud allegations and be right back. After that, I will explain to you how the Constitution is not a suicide pact and that we were de facto at war with terrorists ever since they attacked the Marines in Lebonon.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPlease show me where the FISA court allows this without a warrant?
It's not just a question of FISA allowing it. FISA expressly prohibits it, and makes it a felony offense.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm"t’s not just a question of FISA allowing it. FISA expressly prohibits it, and makes it a felony offense.
Comment by PeterW — March 14, 2007 @ 3:29 pm"
That was kinda my point to Jake......
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pmZimzone:
Thanks for the info (you’ve never heard of Hillary Clinton cursing, I take it?).
Yes, Jakeoff, I have; but she was talking to her husband, not a US Senator.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pmO.K., RemoveBush, here's one:
U.S. Attorney John McKay was fired, in part, for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 governor's race. Don't YOU think voter fraud is a serious issue (or only if your guys doesn't win)? Next up: Why the Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact . . .
March 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pmZimzone:
She's cursed at Dick Morris too.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pmi think voter fraud is a serious allegation, especially without evidence.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pmZimzone:
She’s cursed at Dick Morris too.
Comment by Jake
Zim
So have I.
In fact, everyone should have, by now, cursed at Dick Morris.
Have you ever seen the 'HO's he hangs with?
They're UGLIER than Jeff Gannon!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pmi think voter fraud is a serious allegation, especially without evidence.
Especially when it's long been right-wing code for "keep ethnic minorities not allied to our party from the polls".
March 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pmYou Christianists have been in a de facto war with the Islamists since the 6th century.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pm"#73
O.K., RemoveBush, here’s one:
U.S. Attorney John McKay was fired, in part, for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 governor’s race. Don’t YOU think voter fraud is a serious issue (or only if your guys doesn’t win)? Next up: Why the Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact . . .
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:41 pm"
Let's cherry pick..... How about the FACTS????
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_US_Attorney_Seattle.html
"McKay, one of eight federal prosecutors fired late last year by the Bush administration, told two congressional committees that Ed Cassidy, then chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., asked him about allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 election, which Gregoire narrowly won after two recounts.
McKay said he told Cassidy he was sure that the call was not intended to suggest that Hastings was calling for a federal investigation, because that would be improper.
Cassidy "agreed it would be improper" and ended the call, McKay said. He immediately told his two top staffers about the call and agreed with them that "I had stopped Mr. Cassidy from doing anything improper," McKay said."
...
"But he said he was confident he and his staff had handled the case properly, adding that there was no evidence of voter fraud despite widespread complaints by Republicans in Washington state and the nation's capital.
"Frankly, it didn't matter to me what people thought," McKay told a House Judiciary subcommittee. "There was no evidence of voter fraud."
So now!!!!! If there is NO EVIDENCE do you want our tax money being wasted? If you can PROVE that this person is wrong that there was voter fraud I would like to see it.
Not just Right Wing papers or data...... REAL SCEINTIFIC DATA!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:54 pmI KNOW THAT Fitzgerald WILL PROVE TO BE TO Miss Piggy FAT-F*CK Rove WHAT Ken Starr was TO Bill Clinton--HIS ARCH NEMESIS AND COMEUPPANCE!!!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:22 pmRoger, roger... you sound disappointed with TP. If you truly believe that TP posts "assumptions" and you are starving for the facts, then perhaps you should post elsewhere... somplace that provides you with the "facts" that interest you and stay away from the TP "assumptions".
March 14th, 2007 at 4:36 pmLast I checked, the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, right? They could vote to defund the war in Iraq TODAY (if they had the guts).
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:53
Jake - the Democrats voted to increase funding and the Republicans are voting against supporting the troops by not supporting their funding... even Bush threatened to veto the bill that the supports the troops. Honey, you got it all backwards.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pmIs that revenge cold enough for you Karl?
March 14th, 2007 at 4:43 pmPeter Fitzgerald was my senator and I was very proud of his frequent opposition to Republican Party bullying in favor of standing up for the rights of Illinois voters instead. The GOP tried to twist his arm by withholding funding to his campaign, but Fitzgerald was independently wealthy having made a fortune on his own so he frequently balked the GOP tide much to their consternation. He did very well by the people of Illinois and I frequently wrote him thanking him for doing so.
Thank you again, Senator!
March 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pmHi, Trolls! Just a couple of reasons here, again, why, each and every time you post, you merely prove how stupid you are. You know-- you're so stupid that you don't know how stupid you are. So here goes-- let's see-- 1) the eight were fired by Harriet Meirs and Karl Rove to keep them from prosecuting Rove's friends. That is a felony called "obstruction of justice." There is no connection whatsoever between that action and any other federal attorney replacement ever in the history of the country, except Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. But, of course, none of you trolls understand either the law or history, so you couldn't possibly understand that reference. 2) The completely specious argument that they wouldn't investigate voter fraud is a complete lie-- you know what a lie is, don't you, trolls? It's what comes out of your mouth every time you speak. In fact, those charges of voter fraud are Karl Rove's strategy to confuse the election process. The reason they weren't prosecuted is because the prosecutors couldn't build a case-- in other words, they caught Rove in the lie, and were fired for that. But, of course, this is written in English, so I'm sure you don't understand this, either. Go back to Fox News and brainlessly line up tomorrows mindless talking points for utterly worthless idiots. Bye. oh, and, by the way, you lost the last election because the country is as sick of you as we are.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:59 pmWhy isn't there an entire army of special prosecutors descending on this administration? WTF? Every other day there's a new law broken and a new scandal. Why aren't there multiple investigations going on simultaneously on all fronts?
March 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pmWe need 49 more Fitzs
March 14th, 2007 at 9:55 pmRepublican "Logic":
"But Judge, going sixty miles an hour, ISN'T ILLEGAL"
Librul Judge:
Going sixty in a TWENTY is.
Republican "Logic":
But, Judge, it's not ILLEGAL to fire someone I hired!
Librul Judge: Firing them for 'retaliation' is.
Republican "Logic":
But Judge, firing the attorneys we don't like anymore, isn't ILLEGAL!
Librul Judge: Firing them to obstruct justice is.
Just like the republican trolls to cherry pick their 'logic' for legal defense, the same way they cherry picked their 'intelligence' for going to war.
March 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pmGotta love this. The Great State of Illinois will lead the way to Rove's demise.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pmThe U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
The President serves at the pleasure of the citizens of the United States.
70 percent of U.S. citizens are highly displeased with the President and all the corrupt policies and practices of all the President's Republican crony pals.
Ergo, because the President serves at the pleasure of the American people and a large majority of American citizens are pissed at Bush's performance as President, Bush MUST be impeached...by our representatives and senators in Congress who also serve at the pleasure of the citizens of the United States.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:09 amAfter that, I will explain to you how the Constitution is not a suicide pact and that we were de facto at war with terrorists ever since they attacked the Marines in Lebonon.
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Always late to the party.
But if we were de-facto at war with terrorists, why did Reagan sell them weapons? He began selling weapons to the Iranians shortly after coming into office, and both before and after the Marines were killed in Beihrut. So, what's this suicide pact stuff? You either believe in the Constitution or you don't. My quess is you don't.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:45 am[...] make that clear, Rove has been meddling in these nominations all along, no matter the denials his office puts out. But the odd thing here is that there is nothing wrong with him meddling. Sure, I’ll agree [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 6:02 amThe verbage of the headline leaves the impression that Senator Fitzgerald was pressured by Rove to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald. Very misleading.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:35 amThe obnoxious trolls are probably paid shills for the RNC. The constant talking point about the so-called "voter fraud" concerns is complete B.S. We know about Katherine Harris's fraud in 00...military votes uninvestigated, felon lists expanded to excise Democratic voters, butterfly ballots etc.....where was the US attorney investigation??In Ohio....rampant interference by the black Sec. of State( also Bush election campaign head) with innumerable cases of fraud...where was the US attorney investigation??? Christine Gregoire in Washington State....investigated by US attorney McKay, and the FBI.....no evidence of voter fraud...but only allegations by the RNC....not happy with that ????OK...let us investigate that and ALL instances of voter fraud...and throw those found guilty in jail.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:53 amIsn't "the base" in Arabic, "the base"? "Al-Qaeda or al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida (Arabic: القاعدة al-qÄÊ•ida, trans. 'the base')"~ Wikipedia
So Rove wants to help al-Qaeda!
March 15th, 2007 at 9:33 amoops Isn’t “the base†in Arabic, “Al-Qaeda�
March 15th, 2007 at 9:36 amRepublican “Logicâ€
Good illustration of the obtuse Jake, who thinks he can explain the Constitution to anyone despite the fact that he can't figure out that Bush has violated the Constitution too many times to count.
Perhaps US attorneys are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the President; however, they do not prosecute at the pleasure of the president. That would be obstruction of justice.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:05 am"Those fired were not completely "loyal," as Sampson's e-mails emphasized. But to what policies should a prosecutor be "loyal"? Two academics, Donald C. Shields of the University of Missouri and John F. Cragan of Illinois State University, studied the pattern of U.S. attorneys' prosecutions under the Bush administration. Their conclusions in their study, "The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials," are that "across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80 percent to 18 percent) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers." They also report, "Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops." Thus what the 85 U.S. attorneys who were not dismissed are doing is starkly detailed.
If the Democrats hadn't won the midterm elections last year there is no reason to believe that the plan to use the U.S. attorneys for political prosecutions -- as they have been used systematically under Bush -- wouldn't have gone forward completely unimpeded. Without the new Congress issuing subpoenas, there would be no exposure, no hearings, no press conferences -- no questions at all.
The replacement of the eight fired U.S. attorneys through a loophole in the Patriot Act that enables the administration to evade consultation with and confirmation by Congress is a convenient element in the well-laid scheme. But it was not ad hoc, erratic or aberrant. Rather, it was the logical outcome of a long effort to distort the constitutional framework for partisan consolidation of power into a de facto one-party state."
All roads lead to Rove
The White House political director was clearly at the center of the partisan plot to fire U.S. attorneys, despite the administration's clumsy attempts to pretend otherwise.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/15/rove_attorneys/
March 15th, 2007 at 11:27 amAbu Gonzales must resign. He holds the highest office in the land representing justice. Someone is his position must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. He has failed miserably on that count (along with the rest of Bush Co). The people can not trust the Dept of Justice to be imparital or fairly assert of the laws of the land when this kind of monkey (i.e. chimp) business is going on.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWell Rove has been called the 'architect'... and when you build on slime, well... the whole thing eventually falls down.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some people will go to defend slime. It's like party has replaced any and all sense of decency..any inkling of what is right.
Makes you kinda nostalgic for the days of blue dresses. The hypocrisy even there with major repubs (Gingrich, Guiliani, Foley...etc) making that look like a Mary Poppins event.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:26 pmIt's not how many judges were replace. It's the why? If it is to stop the procecuting of coruption in government, that is WRONG
March 15th, 2007 at 12:48 pmJust remember, there are a lot rungs in a ladder. we are only getting started. so far so good.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pmperhaps Rove, will hang himself, with the 8 atty. fireings...
We can only hope
#4
Roger_Roger, I believe you are correct that generally the attorney should be someone with ties to the community to which one is being appointed to serve. However, it was the person charged with making the appointment, who was himself tied to the community, who made the judgement that because of widespread corruption there was a need to bring in somebody from outside, somebody unencumbered by personal ties in going after said corruption. Don't you agree that an argument could be made for an exception in such a case?
Further, isn't it fair to question, given Rove's Machiavellian record as a political operative, whether he advocated a local appointee as a matter of principle or did he use that principle as cover for more nefarious motives?
March 16th, 2007 at 1:42 amAll right, this is big news-let's get on the subpeona bandwagon and have Rove commit perjury-which he would most likely do-so we can jail this member of the Bush crime family!!!!!
March 16th, 2007 at 9:00 amArgue as you might, you all are missing the BIG PICTURE here. The Federal Government has no standing as such, it rules by color of law not LAW itself. The United States Government is a corporation and as such, should have a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders. Since there are no stockholders as such, their fiduciary responsibility is not to us, because the Federal Government was not created to benefit us, it was created to rob all of the wealth from the citizens (little C) of the united states of America (spelling correct for territory) and place it in the pockets of the owners of the Federal Reserve Banks (read Rockefellers, JP Morgan et. al.). Oh wait, did you not know that the Federal Reserve Bank was not wholly owned and operated by the united states of America? Watch the production "Creature From Jekyll Island" on YouTube and Google video for clarification. Read up a little on James Traficant, a former congressman from Ohio who is incarcerated because the noble man dared stand up at the podium in front of the Congress and say the truth. The united states of America offices ceased to exist in 1933 and the legal fiction United States of America began its reign under bankruptcy of biblical proportions. Don't fear all, the worst has yet to come, but the worst will be short in duration because our divine creator promised us.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:48 am