Conservatives Label Fitzgerald A Failure, Ignoring His Record Of Successful Terrorism Prosecutions
Conservatives Label Fitzgerald A Failure, Ignoring His Record Of Successful Terrorism Prosecutions
Since U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the Bush administration’s leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity — and successfully prosecuted Scooter Libby for perjury — conservatives have sought to discredit the prosecutor. Last month, Michelle Malkin insisted that Democrats would “turn on a dime” against Fitzgerald for going after a Democratic governor — despite the fact that President-elect Obama and top congressional Democrats have called for Fitzgerald to be reappointed as U.S. Attorney.
Continuing their assault on Fitzgerald, conservatives like to argue that Fitzgerald’s prosecution record is weak. Yesterday, Fox News’s Brit Hume decried Fitzgerald’s so-called “propensity” to make accusations “in news conferences” that he “is unable to prove in court.” This morning, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough slammed the prosecutor for bringing cases with “a lot of smoke” but “no fire,” and wondered, “Is Fitzgerald going to go 0 for 2 here in national investigations?” Watch it:
To say Fitzgerald might go “0 for 2″ in national investigations not only ignores the fact that he won a conviction of a Bush aide in the Plame case but, more importantly, completely ignores Fitzgerald’s successful prosecution of the terrorists — including “the blind Shiek” Omar Abdul Rahman — who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. During the trial, Fitzgerald provided a passionate and forceful voice against what he called “a war of urban terrorism,” years before “the War on Terror” began:
– “Terrorism is real. It is here. It is in this courtroom,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told the jury. [AP, 10/2/95]
– Assistant United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald concluded more than two days of the Government’s closing argument by telling the jurors, “The defendants in this room conspired to steal from Americans their freedom from fear.” [NY Times, 9/8/95]
Fitzgerald also indicted Osama bin Laden for terrorism years before he was on the national radar, after the 9/11 attacks. In addition, he secured the fraud conviction of Conrad Black, who had ties to the Bush White House. After successfully prosecuting terrorists, mobsters, governors, and White House officials, Fitzgerald is hardly in danger of going “0 for 2.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why, of course he’s a failure!! He actually prosecuted a Republican.
Like, duh.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:29 amI’m certain any and all of Cheney’s lackeys have gotten the call from their Shotgun in Chief.
Fitzgerald likely has a bulging briefcase of evidence.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:39 amRepublicans/”Conservatives” talking? I am going back to sleep.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:39 amNo wonder conservatives hate Patrick. Fear is their only public card. They have a whole deck of greed, but that’s to stay hidden.
“The defendants in this room conspired to steal from Americans their freedom from fear.”
Republicans-Guilty!
January 5th, 2009 at 11:42 amDon’t the wingnuts like to claim that wherever there’s “smoke,” there’s always “fire?”
Also, if Fitz is 0 for two, then that makes Joe 0 for a bazillion.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:42 amYou know, they can whine that he’s ineffective all they want, but there isn’t one of them that wouldn’t poop in their britches if Obama nominated Fitzgerald to the AG post.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:44 amFAUX doesn’t even try to hide it’s propensity to lean toward wingers…they are wingers!
January 5th, 2009 at 11:44 amMe thinks the GOPigs doth protest too much, hmm? Maybe even a tinge of fear in their attempts to discredit this principled man.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:47 amThis from the “Not Duly Attentive” Network
January 5th, 2009 at 11:55 amHe was also the federal prosecutor on the George Ryan case, wasn’t he?
January 5th, 2009 at 12:00 pmIf Rupert Murdoch is doing nothing illegal, then the fraidy cats at Fox News Channel have nothing to worry about, do they? So why are they so scared that they feel they have to discredit Mr. Fitzgerald?
January 5th, 2009 at 12:04 pmWho cares what Brit the Irrelevant, Michelle the Screamer, Joe the Bombastic, and the rest of the right wing talking heads think — Fitzgerald (or are they still calling him “Fitzpatrick”?) will continue to nab and prosecute the crooks on both sides of the aisle whether or not these wingnuts ever acknowledge that he’s being successful at it. Remember, they never let the facts get in the way of their hype…
January 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Why, of course he’s a failure!! He actually prosecuted a Republican.
______________
One small addition, if I may, Annie…
“He actually, SUCCESSFULLY prosecuted a Republican…”
See? Better, no?
January 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pmFitzgerald did Cheney, Rove, and Libby a huge favor by not prosecuting the whole gang for treason during wartime and putting them in front of a firing squad.
For that, the wingnut rabble repay him by atacking him at every turn.
I hope Fitzgerald learned a lesson from this.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:16 pmThing is most democrats are against Blago, so Malkins opinion, turn on a dime, is false.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pmXisithrus Says:
Thing is most democrats are against Blago, so Malkins opinion, turn on a dime, is false.
The Malkins of the world have their own version of Descartes philosophy: “I think, therefore, everyone else thinks like I do”. The way they describe how others think and act is precisely how they think and act. Malkin would turn on FOX or anyone else if it was to her advantage.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
I concur
January 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pmBring in the clowns.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pmPundits are right about as often as total eclipses of the sun. It makes no sense to listen to them unless your wanting to be misinformed.
If you read the paper your misinformed and if you listen to pundits you will double your misinformation. -A reworked quote from Mark Twain
January 5th, 2009 at 12:39 pmNevar Says:
Fitzgerald likely has a bulging briefcase of evidence.
Yup! What is the Gang O Pirates’ endgame on this one? Scooter is old news, which Repug is in Fitzerald’s sights now?
January 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmAre these guys delusional or are they bald faced lying?
January 5th, 2009 at 1:07 pmI think they know they’re lying. I think, since this is TV news, and misrepresented to the public as fact, these guys should be prosecuted for fraud. At lease false advertising. Something!
Let’s ask Obama to address this issue, get some laws passed, so we can tell these guys they are off the air if they don’t clean up their act.
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
The Malkins of the world have their own version of Descartes philosophy: “I think, therefore, everyone else thinks like I do”. The way they describe how others think and act is precisely how they think and act. Malkin would turn on FOX or anyone else if it was to her advantage.
I doubt if Malkin or any of her ilk subscribe to any philosophy containing the words “I think.” But yeah, there’s a direct causal relationship between their evil and their paranoia – they justify being evil by the fact that everyone else is obviously out to get them. As in, “I need to carry a gun everywhere so I can defend myself against all the gun-carrying criminals,” or “nothing’s a crime when it’s in service of the war on terror.”
January 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pmnellre Says:
I think they know they’re lying. I think, since this is TV news, and misrepresented to the public as fact, these guys should be prosecuted for fraud. At lease false advertising. Something!
______________
Don’t forget… Fox actually sued in court over the right to lie, and won.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pmJoe Scarborough is a stunningly stupid, stupid, ignorant man. He is petty and he never lets facts get in his way. Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted and got the former Governor of Illinois Ryan a new address in prison……where he happens to sit today. Joe and Hume are too lazy to do any research.
Mika’s father should have said he was “stunningly stupid” as well as ignorant.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm13 – I deliberately left out “successfully”, TROS, because I actually don’t consider his prosecution of Libby a “success.” Yes, he got Libby nailed for a few relatively minor charges…
True success would have been a conviction for treason, IMO.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pmYes it’s a smart move on the Republican’s part as they should FEAR Patrick J. Fitzgerald and his team. Libby was only the beginning as Fitz said in court. There’s a cloud over Dick Cheney and Rove while baby Fitz really never filed all the charges against Libby. Yes folks Fitz is a dangerous Proecutor as he has more charges against Libby and this time there’s no President Bush to save him from jail. Like the game of Poker, Pat Fitzgerald still has many Ace’s in his deck of cards. Rove is so afraid of Fitz he sings about him, Cheney shot his friend while thinking about Fitz.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pmLeftside Annie Says:
True success would have been a conviction for treason, IMO.
_____________
Good point… if he had gotten Libby on treason, he might have also gotten another half-dozen or so Admin big fry on conspiracy charges too. But conspiracy is hard to prove. Siiiiiigh… we can only hope.
Amazing level of gall on BigDick’s part, openly admitting he was behind Plame’s outing. It’s almost as though that ginormous *ss h0le was DARING someone to do something about it.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pmClean house Fitzgerald, Right or Left. If there is enough evidence to take them to trial, haul them in. Accountability may be on the way back in. I really hope so. Taking the criminals to trial is a great use of my tax dollars and I fully support it.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:47 pmExactly! Any prosecution of Libby for treason would have necessarily indicted Cheney and Rove. Patrick Fitzgerald might not be afraid of terrorists, but he isn’t crazy enough to mess with those two.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI concur with those commenters who think Fitzgerald has pending evidence on both Rove and Cheney, and perhaps only biding his time to indict them…after Bush is in no position to pardon them or commute any more of these criminal’s sentences.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pmshoeless Says:
Patrick Fitzgerald might not be afraid of terrorists, but he isn’t crazy enough to mess with those two.
Not without a lot more hard evidence than he had at the time. And possibly Secret Service protection.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pmshoeless Says:
Patrick Fitzgerald might not be afraid of terrorists, but he isn’t crazy enough to mess with those two.
Damn straight! Especially not while Chimp in Chief still has 15 days left to declare him an enemy combatant and have him renditioned to some black site in one of the ‘Stans.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pmPreemptive projection.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pmHow in any conceivable sense is Fitzgerald “0 for 2″?
He got convictions for Scooter on four of five felony counts. Wingnuts, of course, insisted that “no crime had been committed”. If that were so, then Fitzgerald should not have been able to deliver a verdict, in which case a failure to convict should not have been held against him (if, that is, the real world mimicked the fantasy world of wingnuts and there had been no convictions).
The fact that Scooter is not in jail right now has NOTHING to do with Fitzgerald’s effectiveness as a prosecutor, and everything to do with Bush’s pathological inability to accept consequences for his (and his friends’) actions.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pmWho cares what conservatives say? They always hit out at anyone they think might do them some damage. And someone who already has. Fitzgerald is someone they fear. He is totally honest. And they are trying to get out ahead by hitting him with a lot of verbal garbage. They are trying to discredit him before he gets started. They hope to neutralize him before he starts any investigation.
This is typical BS. Which means it is typical Republican.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWhat exactly is a “national investigation?” From what I can tell, it’s just one that the MSM takes interest in, and/or which they can recall off the top of their head. By a standard of scope, Fitz has successfully prosecuted a number of cases that count as being more “national” than the Blago indictment. And he did get a conviction with Libby. Furthermore, I don’t see how he could lose the Blago trial, given the degree of evidence he’s got. So the question is not will he go 0 for 2 but will he go 2 for 2, not counting all the other ones he’s slamdunked?
January 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pmWell, he did fail to indict Karl Rove.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm