Posted on 02/11/2009 2:32:45 AM PST by malkee
From NBC's Pete Williams Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago who brought criminal fraud charges against Rod Blagojevich, will be staying in his job in the Obama administration, even though he was appointed to the position by President George W. Bush.
U.S. attorneys are political appointees. The normal practice, when there's a change of political parties in the White House, is for the incoming administration to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys with appointees from the new president's party. For now, the Obama administration has asked the current Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys to remain in their posts while it considers how many to retain.
But Fitzgerald will not be asked to move on. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recommended that Eric Holder, the new attorney general, keep Fitzgerald. That suggestion was "positively received," according to officials at the Justice Department and Sen. Durbin's office.
Fitzgerald has been the U.S. attorney in Chicago since 2001. His spokesman had no comment on Fitzgerald's future.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
I guess that answers that question ...
Yes, I guess it does. But we can always hope against hope.
But he already cut off the investigation before it could lead to Obama and he controls what will be presented in court. The only hope I can see is if Blago, himself, somehow blows the top off of everything and publicly reveals a direct link to Obama.
Those three weeks of unreleased wiretaps have just been 86’ed.
“Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recommended that Eric Holder, the new attorney general, keep Fitzgerald.”
The fix is in ... ping.
Yup, sleepin' with the fishes.
Thats the impression that I had also ...... It seems he raised an uproar when he did it ... !
Ray Charles could have seen this one coming...
More honest ‘reporting’ from Pete Williams/MSNBC
Guess Durbin’s play, (Duckworth), with Blago was immaterial. Well, now anyway.
Funny, but true.
Blago needs to spill it. STAT!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2183015/posts
Blagojevich on FOX’s Hannity show Wednesday
And Bush did not because?
Ah ... yes ... I forgot. He was a "compassionate conservative".
Suddenly I feel all touchy feely.
Patrick Fitzgerald is a SCUM DEMOCRAT.
“Yes, I guess it does. But we can always hope against hope.”
Wasn’t this stated months ago that he would be kept on? (ya, Iknow, promises)
[When I read the headline and response, I thought that Rove was going to be indicted and that Jason Leopold or William Pitt was going to take over as WH spokesperson]
You prefer somebody suggested by William Ayres?
Yep. Our only hope is Blago now, longshot that it is ...
While it considers how best with the exception of idiot Fitzgerald to kick their butts out on the street without appearing to.
Did Jorge give a pardon to Libby before he departed?
But I thought that the dims had a cow when W fired 8 - accusing him of doing terrible things!
That’s what I thought also. At that time, it was reported that never before had any president cleaned out Justice. And having known folks who served as US attorneys, I think that is correct. It didn’t used to matter what party they were affiliated with.
Wait, didn't anybody else catch this? When Bush fired a handful of US Attorneys it was "the politicization of justice" and a national scandal and his AG had to resign. Now all of a sudden they're political appointees and Obama is showing rare forbearance by not firing all of them all at once? Just shameless hypocrisy.
Yes. But the only real uproar from the MSM came when Bush fired 8, I think. It was okay to get rid of Bush I's AG's but when Bush II did it is was not.
Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush's 8
Blago will not go down alone. If he does not sing there has been a deal.
Blago needs to spill it. STAT!
While he is still alive.
I’m surprised that he is still alive.
It is not surprising to see Fitzgerald stay. He has been working for the Democrats since day one.
His integrity is non-existent.
After the railroading Fitzgerald gave Scooter Libby and the rest I have no respect for him.
Nope. It's common and ordinary practice, back to before Reagan.
Don't feel bad, plenty of people fell for the Bush White House line, "yeah, but Clinton fired all of his" line. GWB fired all of them when he took office, and then somebody in his administration (GWB asserts he was completely out of the firing decision loop, so it isn't clear exactly WHO has the power to make US Attorney firing decisions) terminated an unprecedented number at the start of his second term.
We’ll see how much stink the Dhims make when OBummer fires any of them.
Have you fact checked "Bush did not replace [almost] all US Attorneys when he took office."?
There is a nominations search tool at the Library of Congress, and it can be used to check the number of US Attorneys replaced on a year by year basis.
I thought it was rather obvious that I indicated Bush did not replace them.
Sorry if I misled you.
Actually, What happened is Fitz put a wire on John Wyma, who was BlanO assistant. Because Wyma actually negotiated many of Blank=O illegal projects it eliminated Rezko from using his knowledge of Blank-O illegal projects to negotiate his own sentencing.....Rezko is left with only one person higher to squeal on.....OBAMA......
Fitz knew what he was doing.
And I thought it was rather obvious that I aksed if you had confirmed that assertion.
I thought Bush was severely castigated over firing one of these judges.
He was, but he says "he" didn't fire them, that the decision to fire a number of US Attorneys at the start of his second term (vs at the start of his 1st, where it is ordinary) was made by unnamed others in his administration. That, and the non-credible reason for firing some of them, is what made the press.
Clinton's firing of "all 93" made the press because Janet Reno was ham fisted and asked for the resignation of Mary Jo White, who was investigating a matter "close to Clinton." It'd be the same problem for Obama if he fired Fitzgerald, since Fitz is investigating the Chicago machine, and Obama was/is close to the Chicago machine.
I was just looking up those 8 prosecutors that were fired by Gonzales.
Thanks for straightening me out.
It's water under the bridge by now. IIRC, Gonzales didn't well-justify or explain the decision-making process either. IOW, the answers to the questions of who put those positions in the cross-hairs, and why, are still murky. Reasonably-founded speculation says some of the decisions were at least partly politically motivated, driven by non-elected/non-accountable players (Rove's name comes up) and facilitated by small players in the DOJ (e.g., Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling).
I have to say that the line "Yeah, but Clinton fired all of his" worked wonders. I would guess that the vast majority of conservatives are unaware that the GWB and Clinton administrations were "the same" in that regard.
-- Thanks for straightening me out. --
Thanks for taking the time to look at the facts.
Bush fired his own appointees. Although he was within his rights to do it, it is a very rare occurrence and that is what caused the uproar.
"The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.[9][10] Two other attorneys were dismissed in controversial circumstances in 2005-2006. Twenty-six or more U.S. Attorneys had been under consideration for dismissal during this time period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
I believe he commuted his sentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.