Replies

Damn right ... he gets neurotically fixated on what he imagines happened, and carelessly acts on it like a broken laser!! Too quirky and disfunctional for such a power position.

Victoria Toensing, whom I adore, agrees:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich boorishly peddling Barack Obama’s Senate seat was ugly enough. But why did U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald act so soon, before the case was fully developed? As former top Department of Justice official Victoria Toensing noted, “The governor’s maneuvering to sell the Senate seat most likely had not yet crossed the line to become criminal.”

The Attorney’s actions were very strange. Here you have an officer of the law – whose legal guidelines require that he not go beyond the specific public facts of the indictment – holding a colossal media conference telling the world Blagojevich was engaged “in a political corruption crime spree,” that he “has taken us to a new low,” that various of his actions were “appalling” (several times), and finally that his “conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.”

The guidelines specifically require that a “prosecutor shall refrain from making extrajudicial comments that pose a serious and imminent threat of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

What could Mr. Fitzgerald have said to the TV that would have been more prejudicial than what he actually intoned into every living room in America? As Ms. Toensing rightly concludes, this is unethical conduct pure and simple and deserves public condemnation.

While he was effusive with prejudicial comments, the U.S. Attorney was evasive on the central question of why the wiretaps were set in the first place. He answered with technical statements about how difficult they were to be secured, avoiding the question, why?

Weeks after, it is still not clear when and why wiretaps were set. They apparently started with a complaint from person who was perturbed that she could not secure a low-level state contract. Thereafter, the investigation meandered widely over an incredible five years until it finally landed with a bug in the governor’s office. That this is a rather circuitous route perhaps explains why Fitzgerald did not give a direct answer. But it gets worse.

U.S. Attorneys are supposed to “exercise reasonable care” over the law enforcement officials used for the investigation, as Toensing also notes. Yet, at the same media event, FBI Special Agent Rob Grant volunteered a question to himself out loud, asking no one in particular whether Illinois was the “most corrupt state in the United States?”, answering his own question that if it is not the worst “it’s one hell of a competitor.”

He gratuitously added that even his seasoned agents were “thoroughly disgusted and revolted by what they heard” as they listened to the wiretaps. Even if Grant’s agents are this sheltered, it is hard to argue his language was not prejudicial.

The U.S. Attorney has been there before, in the high-profile Scooter Libby case. To quote Toensing,

In his news conference in October 2005 announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice, he compared himself to an umpire who “gets sand thrown in his eyes.” The umpire is “trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked” his view.

With this statement, Mr. Fitzgerald made us all believe he could not find the person who leaked Valerie Plame’s name as a CIA operative because of Mr. Libby. What we all now know is that Mr. Fitzgerald knew well before he ever started the investigation in January 2004 that Richard Armitage was the leaker and nothing Mr. Libby did or did not do threw sand in his eyes. In fact — since there was no crime — there was not even a game for the umpire to call.

http://www.exposeobama.com/tag/victoria-toensing/

The Blago trial is completely farcical .. a joke. There’s a massive protection racket in play. The drones and pre-selected targets get nailed, the ringleaders/primary operators of higher and more political connections get velvet glove treatment.