Fitzgerald: You Can’t Have Witnesses, But You Can Have 4 Conversations
I’m about to open Christmas presents, so I’ll have to put off any real comment on the news that Fitz is doing the legal work to release a very select group of intercepts to the Blagojevich impeachment committee. From his filing, it looks like he’s willing to release just four conversations.
After careful deliberation, the government applies for authorization to disclose a limited number of intercepted communications in redacted form. Although many relevant communications were intercepted, the government believes that, on balance, it is appropriate to seek the disclosure of four intercepted calls, in redacted form, to the Committee, and that disclosure of the calls by themselves would not interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. These calls bear on a discrete episode of criminal conduct alleged in the complaint affidavit, specifically at Paragraph 68(e), and the calls are evidence of a criminal offense that the government was authorized to monitor under the wiretap order. Under separate cover and under seal, the government provides to this Court for its ex parte, in camera review, both a set of the full audio recordings of these four calls (Exhibit 3) and a set of proposed redacted recordings (Exhibit 4) omitting portions of the conversations not material to the episode described in Paragraph 68(e) of the complaint affidavit.
It will not surprise you in the least that Paragraph 68(e) is one of the least sexy in the entire complaint.
Also during this call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Fundraiser A spoke about efforts to raise funds from two other individuals before the end of the year. Fundraiser A advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that with respect to one of these individuals, Contributor 1, Lobbyist 1 had informed Fundraiser A that Contributor 1 was “good for it” but that Lobbyist 1 was “going to talk with you (ROD BLAGOJEVICH) about some sensitivities legislatively, tonight when he sees you, with regard to timing of all of this.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked, “Right, before the end of the year though, right?” Fundraiser A responded affirmatively. Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he knows Lobbyist 1 is “down there (Springfield, Illinois)” with Contributor 1 “pushing a bill.” In a series of calls since that time, it became clear that the bill Lobbyist 1 is interested in is in the Office of the Governor awaiting ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s signature. The bill, which is believed to be a law which involves directing a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry, is expected to be signed as soon as next week. In a call on December 3, Lobbyist 1 advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Lobbyist 1 had a private conversation with Contributor 1 about the contribution (“commitment”) Contributor 1 had not yet made and advised Contributor 1 “look, there is a concern that there is going to be some skittishness if your bill gets signed because of the timeliness of the commitment” and made clear that the contribution “got to be in now.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH commented to Lobbyist 1 “good” and “good job.” In a call the next day, Lobbyist 1 asked ROD BLAGOJEVICH to call Contributor 1 “just to say hello, I’m working on the timing of this thing, but it’s gonna get done.” Lobbyist 1 suggested that it is better for ROD BLAGOJEVICH to make the call personally “from a pressure point of view.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he would call Contributor 1 and indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to do an event (fundraiser) downstate “so we can get together and start picking some dates to do a bill signing.” Lobbyist 1 assured ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Contributor 1 would be good for the donation because Lobbyist 1 “got in his face.”
It may not be sexy, but this is also one of the allegations pertaining most directly to pending legislation.
Damn. It doesn’t even appear to have recorded Blago swearing.
You’ve got power.
Maybe cuz I’m pro-Obama, but this whole mess is one fucking distraction.
Politicians trade horses, or I’m I missing something?
Yeah, it’s not like anything Blago is accused of is new to American politics. I’ve always assumed some sort of vaguely unsavory deal behind every appointment. The only real difference seems to be they got Blago on tape.
Boxturtle (People who like sausage and respect the law should never watch either being made)
Unless, of course, you’re a butcher (charcutierer) or a lawyer, in which event you get some real enjoyment out of doing it, and watching it being done right.
And, yes, I have made sausage, too.
Umm, there are dozens of laws preventing personal enrichment in return for public policy decisions.
If he can do this, why can’t I accept a bribe at the election office where I work in return for swinging the results a little bit one way or another? Why do we care about EPA officials accepting bribes in return for lax enforcement of environmental rules? What’s really wrong with Abramoff getting the labor laws in the Marianas loosened in return for a few million and a yacht or two for some of the congressmen who’d do his bidding?
It’s all just part of the game, right?
Fitz is doing the death of 1000 cuts, one news release at a time. I know it’s technically legal, but I had thought better of him.
Theory: Fitz expected Blago to turn things over to the Lt. Gov once he realized how much evidence there was. When that didn’t happen, Fitz realized the problem he created. I think right now he’s trying to figure out how to get the committee enough to impeach without risking the criminal case.
Boxturtle (Still thinks another application to the Ill Supremes is the way to go)
Right, but it is most definitely not his place to be manipulating this. For better or worse, he just just shut up and let the State deal with its own problems. This selectively flitting in and out is not right.
I’m sorta glad this is being discussed. I started to mention it sometime ago when it became clear this path was being comtemplated. However, I refrained from mentioning it because I didn’t want to give the gossipmongers the ammunition. If any other Repug USA did this controlled release of info to help impeach a Dem govenor, cries of “Abuse of power would erupt”, and certainly so if the labels were reversed.
This is really outrageous. Anyone interested in due process should be up in arms about this.
The goverment can’t leak selectively. It is all or nothing.
Bingo
And I might add Fitz is not only selectively prejudicing Blagos ability to defend against the impeachment, he is also poisoning the potential jury pool for the criminal case against Blago.
Considering the esteem in which Fitzgerald is held, have you any thoughts regarding why he is doing ‘things’ in this very transparently unprofessional manner, bmaz?
He’s a cop. He wants to win cases. He’s going to do what he can and what he has to, to win cases. Unlike a lot of other cops, he has shown scruples – which manifest themselves as “Following the Rule Book to the Letter” and “obeying the spirit of the law as well as the letter”.
The esteem is a creation in a lot of minds of the sort of people who patronize this site, largely as a function of his having gone after some real betes noires of those visitors, particularly Libby, Cheney and Rove.
Please remember to separate your vision of the guy from the reality. Or, said another way, don’t pour your hopes into the image you create of him. Or anyone, for that matter.
Does Blago insist on discovery and then try to selectively release favorable conversations? Dangerous, as Fitz is probably keeping the really ugly stuff under wraps.
Jury pool contamination is unavoidable in a case like this. Blago either needs a change of venue or he needs to ask for a judicial panel. The latter might be the way to go, especially since Blago’s defense seems to be that he committed no illegal acts and the conversations themselves were simply business as usual. Judges will decide more on the latter of the law.
If I were the legislature, I might say “Blago, turn things over on a temp basis to the Lt Gov as the law provides until this is settled or we impeach you with the information available”. Certainly, the votes are there. The GOP won’t risk backing Blago just to get a special election.
Boxturtle (Fox network new reality show: “So you want to be a Senator!”)
Brought to you no doubt by the fine people at Rocket Science Laboratories, the producers of “Joe Millionaire” and “Joe Millionaire, European-chicks edition“, and a wealth of other trash TV.
I thought it was the prerogative of the Prosecution to list only that evidence necessary to support the indictment on the charges. They do have to provide the defense with the evidence before the trial, but they need not reveal ALL the information on possible charges until they are charged.
In fact, that allows the prosecution to make deals to get the defendant to plead to a limited set of charges in order to provide evidence against others that may be involved who are not disclosed in the indictment. Recall that Fitz is a former organized crime prosecutor. So he may have more evidence and simply wants to bargain with it.
I’m sure if he released it all it would be a slam dunk in the impeachment (which doesn’t require a criminal conviction and is limited to removing the officeholder from their position, hence is not double jeopardy). The fear of jury tainting is, of course, a possibility. Which is another reason not to reveal all the evidence. If the jurors are exposed to phone calls via the impeachment trial Fitz may not be allowed to use that material in the criminal trial.
Actually in Federal cases, the prosecutor doesn’t even have to produce all evidence before trial; a substantial amount can be withheld until the particular witness the evidence is tied to testifies. But that is neither here or there to the instant issue.
The point is not what evidence the prosecutor, in this case Fitz, can and cannot release to the impeachment committee, but whether he should be deciding selectively which snippits to release and whether he should be the one advocating to the court to release them.
And, looking right into the Illinois House’s own kitchen, it has to do with events in Springfield.
Seeking to release the information relative to auctioning the Obama seat would not have had nearly the same effect as information relative to pending legislation. Fitz is making the impeachment committee’s work easy for them. If the impeachment committee has “proofs” before them relative to buying and selling legislation, it’s pretty much a slam dunk for them, seeing as how their own prerogatives would be offended and they could then impeach and convict on state grounds independent of whether Blago is ever convicted of a federal offense. Remember, too, fellow commenters, that “honest services fraud” is (or was) in the opinion of many commenters here and elsewhere one of the more tenuous (though legally sufficient) grounds for federal involvement. But Fitz is parsing the federal and state grounds and parceling out – to the state authorities – the state grounds.
Nice work.
I agree that is exactly what he is doing, and I understand why he is doing it. And I agree he is doing a sharp job of it.
I just don’t like the feel of it.
James Michael Curley is alive and well, and living in Illinois…
Frank Skeffington… corruption with charm..
Blago, corruption with profanity and malice toward all
Has Blagojevich’s counsel even been given an opportunity to object to and attempt suppression of ony of the intercepts yet?
How do you start leaking them out before his counsel has had a chance to review what there is and make objections if appropriate?
8 – yep.
That’s what this motion is, as I understand it; Genson will have the opportunity to object to these releases.
The Fitz filing is plainly – I’d say painfully – clear on this: it’s being done to provides a forum for MacBlago and any other interested or concerned “interceptees” to object to the contents being used in the impeachment or other process.
Baloney. They already have a forum to do that, the criminal case. He is specifically seeking to release hand cherry picked selected tidbits, in redacted form at that, directly to the impeachment committee. And the legislative impeachment process is neither the correct, nor proper, forum for resolving suppression issues. Total bunk.
bmaz, call me a naive foreigner (and that would be the truth), but I have been reading along faithfully for a couple of days, and aren’t you arguing the opposite case of what you argued yesterday (or maybe the day before)?
It sounds to me so far as though Fitz is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, and what forced that was the dealing over the Senate seat and maybe Emanuel’s seat.
I do see BoxTurtle’s point @ 33.
I think that’s me
yesterday I was saying Impeachments don’t have to be fair (and I still believe that)
but if we’re gonna have a “Fair” impeachment, Fitz is WAY out of line
hey, I’m a loose cannon. I’m not married to consistency. I can argue two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time. I’m unpredictable, if I can go storming off, why can’t I come storming back ???
when logic fails, you must use another tool …
seriously, either we’re gonna ream this guy, or we’re gonna give him a fair trial, make up yer mind already
Patience my ass, I wanna Impeach somethin …
I will admit that this is a serious conflict pour moi. I was brought up for years on Rumpole: “only defend.” And I love those defence lawyers.
But now I’ve met all these interesting Merkin prosecutors who seem to be able to defend democracy against the evil-doers. I learned something from Fitz about the difference between sources who are whistle-blowers and sources who are just laundering government propaganda. And so on and so forth. Except for EW and bmaz and everyone else here, I have seldom watched a smarter person. So I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I ain’t convinced that Fitz is all that smart
his interpretation of our espionage and secrecy laws is a fancified way of nullifying the laws based on what MIGHT happen. first off, prosecutors ain’t the people who are charged with interpreting the laws, second, we don’t nullify laws because of some potential outcome, and third, if the law causes unintended consequences, it is the job of the legislature to correct the laws, not not some no-dick USA
Fitz betrayed America and his Oath Of Office when he declined to prosecute scooter and kkkarl under the “Unlawfull disclosure” laws, and a schmuck like me can easily destroy his justification for his abrogation of duty
so he can’t be all that smart
more of a repuglitard coverup artist than a smart prosecutor
that’s my take on Fitz
but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he BLEW that with his latest stunt …
I’m just an Idiot on the innertubes, but that’s my opinion
Maybe, not sure what you are referring to. I argue conflicting stuff all the time; usually for some specific purpose or in distinguished circumstances. Sometimes I am just lame….
Faux meat back at you. You’re suggesting Fitz is throwing the issue of admissibility on impeachment over to the state legislature – that’s where it SHOULD be!
Moreover, I’d go so far as to suggest that issues of admissibility in criminal proceedings are so starkly different from issues of admissibility in impeachment proceedings, that a wiretapped conversation inadmissible in the former could be justified in the latter. Both the person charged and society in general pays a steep price for the admission of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings – whereas elected officials take on whatever that price may be in impeachment proceedings, and we all find out the amount of it at election time.
Are there multiple offenses? Can Fitzgerald sacrifice one criminal count in order to allow for impeachment, but play the remaining counts closer to the chest so that there’s a criminal case? I’m not recommending this, just wondering if that’s the kind of calculus he’s undertaking.
Hmm, ’Reply’ seems not to function at the moment(?).
Ah, I see that scribe has already provided a workable ’answer’.
Thank you, scribe.
DW
Generally speaking, what we have is an election of remedies problem.
In my opinion, a decision should be made to either proceed against Blago through impeachment or by criminal prosecution. To try to do both is going to result in a situation as fouled up as a stack of coat hangers.
Future solution: Legislate a Recall Provision?
In response to scribe @ 21
Well said, scribe … and absolutely true, always.
What – the Euro-chicks edition or the no-pedestal for Fitz?
Fitz.
Julia up at the Mothership on a botched pardon.
2 – “Theory: Fitz expected Blago to turn things over to the Lt. Gov once he realized how much evidence there was.”
I think that’s right. Even within this investigation starting with wiring Ms Davis of the children’s hospital, there already may have been at least one and perhaps more incidents of some combination of shame and resignation playing a role in resolving one character’s fate to move on to the next; and both Levine and Atta are possibilities.
I have a hard time seeing how what Fitzgerald did in the opening presser is open to criticism for hoping those reactions to hold sway.
“When that didn’t happen, Fitz realized the problem he created.”
That HE created? I thought we got past this a while back.
As MacBlago drew closer to maybe declaring a winner in Obama’s Seat Sale, Fitzgerald quite obviously was caught between a spot in Rock Island and a place in Hardy Heights: allow things to continue to unfold and maybe the feds get a completed crime – alone with who knows what kind of mess this creates in the US Senate, for it, for Illinois, for the incoming president and for the entire country.
Fitz didn’t “create” the problem here – MacBlago et al did.
“I think right now he’s trying to figure out how to get the committee enough to impeach without risking the criminal case.”
That’s one available read, certainly. But there’s another that cuts a lot closer to the sort of thinking a responsible employment of the power of office would be engaging in at this point: that he’s trying to find ways to release facts that both appear relevant to the duties and powers of the Illinois state legislative bodies and are least open to being manipulated in this other process and under the light of public exposure into appearing to stand for something other than what they actually mean to convey.
[There’s also a bonus in this process for the prosecution. Career prosecutors, in my experience, are generally less creative, open-minded, imaginative, whatever, in anticipating the kinds of spin that persons defending criminal charges, than those who have spent some significant period of time actually defending real persons accused of committing real crimes. All prosecutors from whatever background and with whatever motivations are grateful to eager to receive a preview of whatever that spin might be, genuine or otherwise. Indeed, the beauty of this situation is that Team MacBlago in dealing with the Seat Sale aspect in the context of impeachment has to test run its defense in full view of the public, and with a vast number of folks like us in the cheap seats throwing down popcorn and pies. But this is a feature and we don’t have enough to conclude that it’s the goal.]
I still don’t see how any of this qualifies as unprofessional on Fitzgerald’s part.
Elected officials inaugurated this impeachment process, including previewing its parameters as being based in some part on the contents of the Complaint and Affidavits – not Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald didn’t demand [because he can’t, and can’t enforce it anyway] that the relevant state legislature committee avoid relying on witnesses he feels the federal prosecution service MIGHT need in its investigation and any prosecution – he requested.
Indeed, its not at all clear that the state committee has entirely deferred to Fitz’ request, or at least not to the extent that Fitz has some level of practical comfort.
It remains open for the elected officials responsible for the conduct of the impeachment process to override that request – at their political peril, of course, given the context and Fitz’ hard-earned reputation for being able to deliver. A strong legislator could do that – and don’t you think Fitz knows that? – and perhaps a strong legislator, or more than one, will do so. There are risks either way.
For those of you who think there’s some other “more responsible” path that Fitz should be following here – lay it out so we can all see if it holds up.
Easy. He should stay the fuck out of the impeachment proceedings altogether and not be selectively taking it upon himself to decide which facts and evidence are “relevant” and desirable for him and him alone to release to an independent proceeding.
That would certainly be one “more responsible path”.
Then we disagree – again.
And again: Fitz is NOT acting as the ‘decider’ here: not on impeachment [versus not impeachment] – and not on what might be used in the process of impeachment.
It reminds me of the scene in Steve Martin’s LA Story, where Martin’s character wants to take his date to a high-priced restaurant and gets put through a bank audit on his asset base, where the head chef proclaims that his circumstances make “the duck” out of the question, though “he can have the chicken”, and Martin’s character raises that he can’t be expected to control what his date might order, and the maitre d’ played by Patrick Stewart retorts: “You can always URGE her”.
Fitz is playing the maitre d’ here: he can’t prevent the state legislature from dipping into the asset pool of his investigation – he can only URGE it. And urging it towards a result that best preserves his ability to prosecute with maximum efficacy is simply responsible, not manipulation.
I’ve seen again and again, over decades now, a certain … inability, unwillingness, I don’t know what … of each side in the prosecution-defence dichotomy to see the nature of what her or his opposing number is facing and to judge her or his counterpart accordingly.
Is it happening here?
First, I don’t think he should be the one deciding what should be released. If he’s going to work with the legislature, give them (and Blago) all the data under seal and let them decide what should be released.
Or simply proceed to discovery and make his case part of the public record.
If he can’t do either of the above, he should shut up outside of the courtroom.
Boxturtle (Give him a fair trial. Then shoot him)
Well, if Fitz’s theory was that Blago would turn things over to the Lt. Gov., I don’t think he thought this through very well. That was never going to happen.
At this point, the “more ‘responsible path’” would be to recognize there is a fork in the road and select either the impeachment path or the criminal prosecution path.
You’re suggesting Fitzgerald had some responsibility to ‘choose’ between indictment and impeachment? Really? Besides that impeachment is something that arose AFTER Fitz went public to prevent the Senate Seat Sale from being completed? When, pray tell, are you suggesting that he erred in opening his mouth? At the presser?
Yes, I am suggesting he has that responsibility.
As for the rest of your comment as to the Senate Seat Sale aspect, the error probaly occurred before the presser.
I’m saying that
Fitz has a lawful place to make his public statements as a USA
it’s called a COURTROOM
how would YOU like it if the prosecutor presented his opening argument against YOU, on a fucking stage, in front of cameras ???
somebody mentioned “Tainting The Jury Pool”
can you think of a BETTER way to taint the jury pool ???
I think you’re confusing an effect with a purpose.
you could be right. Fitz might not have intended to quash the auction, or his hand could have been forced by the media
whatever his problems, Fitz shoulda expected a shit storm
and now Fitz has his nuts in a vice
the selective disclosure offer is the slimiest thing he could have done
with regard to the Impeachment, he should disclose all or nothing, depending on what is best for the case
as far as I can tell, Fitz doesn’t have to give the Illinois legislature a fucking thing
but blagoff is another story
fitz took the stand, he filed the papers. There are rules about what Fitz has to give to blagoff (you know disclosure better than me)
and Fitz HAS TO BE AWARE of blagoff’s rights, especially the right to a presumption of innocence
so Fitz didn’t know he was setting of a shit storm, in the middle of on of the most corrupt State’s in America ???
Fitz didn’t know he was gonna have to deal with all of these competing interests and parties ???
what fucking planet has he been on ???
sure, I might be confused. and if Fitz gets his shit together, I’ll be unconfused
but if fitz don’t get his ducks in order, I might not have been so confused
so there’s that to consider …
Oh, now you’ve done it. I think you have just insulted Alabama, Louisiana and Alaska. They all have a legitimate claim to that throne.
Sometimes when they don’t get into formation, it’s the ducks’ fault – especially when they’re lame.
I can think back on the two most obvious situations as a prosecutor when a reporter with national platform sought me out, and I really didn’t feel any desire or need to meet with them, but I was obliged to inform those to whom I was answerable, and someone above me in the pecking order did, for whatever reason. And of course what ensued was a bit of a storm, and of course it contained some shit, and of course whatever of that hit the government side stuck on me. So, sure Fitz could foresee that happening here, and given his far higher profile than I ever had, I’m sure he in fact did foresee it. But it’s not as if he was the one shovelling the shit into the path of the storm – and it may not even have been his choice that his office wade into it.
Quote:”At this point, the “more ‘responsible path’” would be to recognize there is a fork in the road and select either the impeachment path or the criminal prosecution path.”
I don’t agree with that fork. Part of the problem is that an indicted (heck, arrested and convicted) governor is still a governor. We haven’t heard the evidence, but there could be extenuating circumstances that are compelling Fitzgerald to provide some evidence to the government.
Given his track record of unequalled professionalism, I guess I would give pause before ruling on his integrity.
I have not ruled on his integrity; however, I have ruled he is a mere mortal.
first off, what’s with the fookin press conferences ???
I could understand the PC in the Libby indictment given the circumstances, but in the course of a REGULAR investigation and indictment I have never seen a prosecutor deliver the opening argument to a press pool before the suspect is even arraigned
so there’s THAT
and then we return to disclosure (I ain’t EVEN gonna try and explain that one around here)
and let’s not forget that Fitz has a proactive responsibility to protect the rights of ALL Americans, and blaggoff is an American. So Fitz is failing BADLY there
some people claim Fitz didn’t create this problem, but Fitz gave the presser, Fitz asked for the indictment, Fitz started the legal ball rolling here, and that’s where the problems are
tell me again how Fitz didn’t start this …
Okay, I’ll tell you again:
It wasn’t Fitz who decided to put Obama’s Senate Seat up for sale on MacBlago-mail.
Now: are you saying that, faced with those same circumstances, with what you see as a CRIME ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED going on right in front of your face, you would remain silent, and watch as the crime gets committed, as as the seat in the US Senate just vacated by the next POTUS gets auctioned off, and then occupied by the highest bidder, and THEN come out with an indictment which shows the whole thing, AND that you watched it happen- that you watched what you have just indicted as a CRIME happen – and did NOTHING to prevent it?
faced with those same circumstances
Based on what I know now, if I was fitz, the presser would have only been about the senate seat sale
all the rezco stuff and the trib stuff would still be hidden behind a firewall
I would only disclose the senate stuff, and as much as I had to about the origins of the taps
this would have tipped blagoff about the taps, but blaggof figured it out anyway, so …
and maybe that’s what fitz tried to do, I don’t really know
maybe Fitz was caught between a rock and a hard place, and he had to take one for the team
he ain’t lookin like an honest prosecutor, I can tell you that …
Quote:”Based on what I know now, if I was fitz, the presser would have only been about the senate seat sale
all the rezco stuff and the trib stuff would still be hidden behind a firewall”
If an indictment is ready, it’s reasonable to include all that it covers in a press conference.
In response to oldgold at 54, I hope you’re not implying that I think Fitzgerald is something other than a mere mortal. While I find his level of professionalism refreshing, I’m not quite ready do deify him
Though, putting up just the Senate Seat Sale stuff might leave the impression that such was the singular focus of the investigation, which impression could end up hurting some folks who don’t necessarily deserve it.
Putting up the larger context, which larger context is something the Illinois public is already familiar with, does bring with it the risk that, IF the applicable state legislature committee recommends impeachment, it and the state legislature might decide to dip deeper into the pool of evidence. But the IF is not Fitz’ call.
I feel I should add this: I’m not offended by the option of the state legislature diving right into Fitz’ pool of evidence, even though it cannot know the depths at each particular point. I think it could be quite refreshing for the state legislative bodies to lead the charge to reform, especially given how little effect on business as usual that criminal investigations and convictions have proven to have.
And therein lies my rub. It should be all or none offered up by Fitz. What I don’t like is Fitz selectively picking and choosing, on his own, what to petition the court to release.
Alternatively, I could support interpleading his case file to a special court master or something. I just do not like the feel of Fitz being the omniscient gate keeper.
>all the rezco stuff and the trib stuff would still be hidden behind a firewall
Of course, it also wasn’t Fitz who decided to offer a $100 million loan to TribCo if they’d bring him the head of Inigo Montoya. So if you concede that stopping the crime-in-process of sale of a Senate seat was a legitimate reason for arrest/press conference, you probably have to admit the same of the $100 million loan.
For me, the mere existence of a Gov-controlled investment bank is prima facie evidence of corruption, but that’s for another thread.
And Rezko wasn’t actually mentioned. So unless you really think that stopping the $100 million loan/editorial support was somehow different from the Senate seat, then it’s hard to see that you have any issue at all with Fitz. Thanks for the free legal advice, though. If I ever need any more, you’ll be high on my blog-list.
Lab Dancer;
Perhaps my use of the term, “unprofessional”, is too strong a word ever to be applied to any attorney and especially as regards one of the sainted stature of Fitzgerald.
Perhaps “sloppy” or “cynically calculated” are more appropriate?
I am not an attorney and occupy the cheapest seat (furthest from any profound or stellar legal insights) yet “sloppy” and “calculated” behaviors on the part of ANY prosecutor, appear to me to wooble rather closely to un-becoming, if not borderline un-professional …
Given Fitzgerald’s ‘reputation’ for dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s, his ‘decisions’, recently, appear clumsy and even ill-considered.
That, of course, is simply my opinion. No more, no less.
I note that some on this thread appear to suggest that only the most-brilliant of attorneys should be allowed ANY opinion, and then, only if such opinion jibes with the current adulatory sentiment …
As you may well imagine, Lab Dancer, I do not and will not accept the validity of such an assertion, implied or explicitly delineated, nor, I suspect, do you.
And while I may disagree with you regarding Fitzgerald, it is most respectfully so.
DW
This has nothing to do with my being a lawyer and so having some more worthy opinion, and you’re not and so having a lesser opinion. The smartest person on this blog is not a lawyer and it’s her opinions that bring us all here.
What it DOES have to do with is determining, based on evidence [what’s known to be so], and based on reasonable extrapolation from evidence, or inference, what might be going on.
Now, there are a number of folks here who want to draw from circumstances, such as Fitzgerald’s not having brought an indictment against Rove, or such as Fitzgerald’s not having made some public presentation of the overall findings of the investigation into the Plame outing, or such as Fitzgerald’s not having just given over to Waxman the unredacted contents of his interviews of Cheney, and of Bush, or such as his having being a registered Republican, that Fitzgerald acted in those circumstances in some partisan, or sloppy, or unprofessional, or corrupt way.
But you just cannot call those types of conclusions as rational, or proper inferences. In each case there have been other available or alternative conclusions, at least some of which are just as rational, to say the very least.
For example, if you recall the twists and turns and the issues and complexities involved in the case of US v I Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and if you keep in mind the various public exhibits of slipperness on the part of one Karl Rove, then you can well imagine any number of ways why Fitzgerald might feel quite differently about the strength of the case against Libby that he would about the case against Rove, having nothing whatsoever to do with his personal feelings or concerns, and having everything to do with his professional assessment.
That doesn’t mean that because such factors MIGHT exist, they DID IN FACT hold sway. It just means that it’s not rational to CONCLUDE that because UNprofessional features MAY have held sway, THEY in fact did.
That same flawed process, so far as I can tell, seem to apply to all the assessments of the MacBlago saga where there’s some suggestion of corrupt motives, or unprofessional conduct. Maybe so – but where folks who are lawyers say it’s so based on inference from facts in the past, I kind of like to go back to those past facts and examine whether the fact on which the inference is based is – in fact – a “fact”.
If your proposition is that I’m somehow lording it over you or someone else that I’m a lawyer and you or they are not so there – well, bmaz is a lawyer, and so is mary, and so is scribe, and so are others here, and frankly I don’t think any of them are suggesting anything of the kind.
Beyond that, if you’re suggesting that as a lawyer I’m somehow ‘ranking’ my opinion over yours or that of others – well, you could have a point there, but only to the extent that, as I’ve just explained, I like my inferences to be the product of the most rational extrapolation from the facts, and where I think others are proposing outta-their-arses speculations as reasonable inferences, I’m inclined to rank the former as the lesser.
But doing so doesn’t require a law degree – just ask Fearless Leader.
I should also point out that in any number of posts I’ve shown no inclination whatsoever to place Fitzgerald in any exalted [as distinct from “exulted”] position. Moreover, I’ve done that from the position of precisely what I say the standard should be: from evidence.
For example, in the case of the notorious non-indictment of Rove, I’ve suggested that there’s enough evidence from Fitzgerald’s two examinations of Libby before the grand jury in that case to conclude that Fitzgerald didn’t follow up on a number of opportunities to hunt down Libby on his phrasing, and that those failures, if something in the same nature occurred in the context of his examinations of Rove, would, due in part to the way Rove manipulates messages, seem far more likely to endanger the utility of the transcripts from those examinations in a trial setting than proved to be so with Libby.
Now, none of that would go to Fitz’ professionalism, or to his motives. Moreover, it’s not as if he doesn’t have a lot of other clearly evident qualities that make him a valuable civil servant. But at least it’s rooted in something that can be called evidence.
my beef with fitz re the rover non-prosecution has to do specifically with fitz opinion that enforcing the law would create some unconstitutional or extralegal “State’s Secrets” act. It ain’t fitz’ place to suppose what affect the outcome of a prosecution would have on the law being used to prosecute,
that’s why we got courts and legislature in the first place
and with regard to bmaz @ 102, I would simply like to note that I always suspect corrupt or unethical behavior as a matter of course
I’m not sitting in the cheap seats, I’m sittin in the Defendant’s chair, that’s MY view of all of this
you’d be surprised how much law you can learn the hard way …
“I always suspect corrupt or unethical behavior as a matter of course”
Not a bad philosophy. Not perfect, mind, nor indeed particularly nuanced; but not bad.
kept me out of jail a few times
didn’t help a few times, but …
the best advice I can give is what I tell my dogs; never trust a human
(wink)
I would simply like to note that, while I am not thrilled with Fitzpatrick’s comportment so far, I do not feel it is corrupt or unethical. Unprofessional is not even a term I would favor; so far I have settled on “unsavory”, not sure it is the best word, but there you have it. I also don’t think he set out intentionally to end up here; however here he is nevertheless. And, for the record, I do not relate this in any way back to the Libby related stuff or anything else. I respect Fitz and admire his body of work. And let me tell you folks, any lawyer that does a lot of trial work, especially difficult or high profile cases, is going to have one here or there that goes slightly awry.
Fitz likes to be in control of everything, and he has predictably lost some here – would have happened even without the press conference, but that did not help things at all. I just wish he would step back out of this and, at least prior to filing this motion, he could have. He should have just declined the legislature’s request and made them petition the court. That would have removed many of the appearances I, and others I think, complain of here in this post.
No, Lab Dancer, I do not consider that you, Mary, bmaz or scribe are lording it over anyone (a certain “bubba”, of the most ’superior’ sort is whom I had in mind).
I feel that you and the “Wheelhouse Gang” are always respectful and most patient with those of us who have neither your collective experience nor wise understanding of human nature before the law; whether you are speaking of attorneys’ motivations, judges’ reasonings or the sometimes absurd gyrations of defendants. It is also a most appreciated priviledge for me to observe the interchanges amongst the “Gang”, for that is where and when I learn the most.
My respect, Lab Dancer, for all of you is most sincere, always.
DW
Thanks for the … clarification [I’m gonna pull a page from the World According To Freepatriot here, and confess to a reflexive resort into a defensive posture in the face of anything that looks like praise; and appearing in front of crocodilian judges exacerbates the condition].
And anyway: Didn’t the freepster already finish digesting that piece of meat?
He finished…jeez, I missed it. Saw that he´d been given the reins, and was taking him on solito. Gotta go back to The Squabble now. Jodi has a twin in spirit, it seems.
There is the possibility that Fitz doesn’t have the ammunition to get a criminal conviction and instead is deliberately sabotaging his case in order to get this guy out of office.
that’s the kinda possibility a JURY needs to decide on
I believe Malfeasance, obstruction of justice, and abuse of prosecutorial power wold be a good place to start
Fitz better HOPE he ain’t got that problem …
Yeah, and it’s just as possible that all of sudden for no good reason Fitz has decided to sabotage his entire career plan and everything he stands for.
I’m actually a bit surprised at the implication that Fitz thinks he’s got a good shot at the Senate Seat Sale supporting conviction. Now, it is possible that he’s honestly over-valuing that as a prosecution asset – but on the other hand he could be trying to preserve its validity as a particular in something like the same way that the videotape of Conrad Black unloading corporate records from the corporation’s Toronto offices into his limo, all while under indictment, a bail bond and a preservation order, tended to put everything Black was charged with doing into Technicolor.
Incidentally [or maybe not], I note MacBlago has the same lawyer as Black: Ed Genson.
Heh. Yeah.
I believe there has been a lot of discussion in earlier posts that the Senate Seat Sale is probably one of the least of the corruption problems that Blago has to deal with. It is just the one that gets all the attention from the media.
But there appears to be a lot of discussion and information from Mr Rezko as well as the Tribune Corp and others.
So very many areas of corruption, it’s almost hard to single out any one.
What are the rules for the impeachment proceedings? If Blago claims that Fitz has exculpatory evidence that he won’t release- what then? I suppose they find him guilty anyway right?
Message to Fitz, quoting Marrissa Tomei:
It’s called disclosure, ya dickhead …
you’re gonna have to hand the shit over SOME DAY
you started the ball moving, Fitz, now pull your head out of your asshole and prove to the world that you AIN’T a cheatin manipulating criminal fuck
and that’s where the blagoff prosecution has left ya
was it worth it
sorry folks, but now we gotta discuss the credibility of Patrick Fitzgerald, get used to it …
“Never discount the obvious” – Churchill. Fitzgerald is an unalloyed Republican. He seems to have a lot of respect for Defendant’s rights, so long as that defendant is named Rove. Everyone has several shots to talk their way out of an indictment, don’t they? I realize that their are budget constraints, but these show trials via news conference still doesn’t quite cut it. Blago’s real sin is his cretin-like linearity, he’s just not discreet, slick or sufficiently insidious. I wonder how many spouses of powerful politicians sit on corporate or foundation Boards? And what of U.S. Ambassadors? I still think that Fitzgerald was out for Obama or his high operatives; this just shows that our Preisdent-elect is one smart and cool political player.
Pure speculative twaddle. As Waxman’s efforts have shown, it’s not Fitzgerald who is denying Congress and the public the remaining fruits of the Plame investigation.
Slighty OT. Big rumor this morning in the capital city(Springfield). Blago will name Obama senate appointment this week. Rumor came from a known Dem operative. Lobbyist.
That rumor isn’t OT. It is highly relevant to this discussion.
It would be a brilliant tactical move by Blago to appoint an individual who is above reproach.
I’m not sure this is getting through, so I’m going to try another tack.
Who “owns” the evidence that has been gathered in the investigation into MacBlago?
Clearly, the “people” own it.
How can the people act on that ownership?
The people have a choice:
[a] Allow all of it to be used in the context of a criminal investigation and possible [well, by now pretty clearly inevitable] indictment.
[b] Take all of it over to another forum with possibly more immediate and arguably more meaningful returns: impeachment.
[c] Try to take some it up to that other forum and to leave the rest of it behind for the criminal forum.
The choice to go beyond [a] was not made by Fitz, but it kinda gives off the impression that he made it, because he chose to go public with some of it, motivated it appears by wanting to prevent the commission of a crime that could cause a lot of mischief that indictment might not be able to redress [If indictment could redress it, I sure don’t see how.]
The choice between [b] and [c] is not being made by Fitz, but it kinda gives off the impression that he’s making the choice, because he’s writing and filing things that make it abundantly clear that such a choice is being made, consciously or not, by others.
Now, if those phone calls that were summarized in the Affidavit are misleading as to MacBlago’s intent, then it would be either
[1] apparent from some ambiguity in the excerpts in the Affidavit
[which ambiguity I can’t see – though I’m open to being convinced otherwise]
or
[2] known to MacBlago to be reflected in other conservations or messages left out of the Affidavit
[which we haven’t seen offered up by MacBlago, or Genson, or anyone – though it would seem in their power to do so – & again I’m open to considering it].
Instead, the only things we’ve heard in response from Team MacBlago are:
[3] MacBlago’s unsupported protestations of “innocence”
[a condition which no one has the right to expect from a politician, nor should anyone; and which plainly, beyond any possible doubt, does not apply to MacBlago, except in the very narrow legal sense of the word society uses to refer to anyone charged with a crime the state fails to prove to the satisfaction of a jury – and therefore is far more likely to be viewed accurately as a prediction than a condition]
and
[4] Genson’s assurance that he will be able to show evidence against his client to have been obtained illegally, and will thus be able to convince … a judge? … is inadmissible
[which also seems more in the nature of a prediction than a condition, in relation to which the most reliable testing would be in a court of law as opposed to an impeachment proceeding].
So: who is really who is making the choices here?
My vote, on this front anyway, goes to MacBlago.
the evidence isn’t singular
it’s more like a six-pac of evidence
Fitz didn’t have to open all six cans at the same time to achieve his goal
he coulda headed off blagoff’s little auction and kept the other five cans of evidence in the cooler
overkill
that’s where Fitz when wrong
once again, fitz is the starting actor, an maybe he ain’t so smart …
The ultimate judgment on the kind of job a US attorney is doing is coming up sometime starting from January 20, and someone I expect you’re prepared to accept as smart enough is going to be in the position of making that judgment.
smart enough, ???
I wouldn’t go THAT far …
I am prepared to accept the fact that Obama is as smart a person as we’re ever gonna get, in my lifetime anyway
in terms of “change”, I admit we’re goin from “Worst To First” (kinda like if the detroit lions were to win 16 regular season games next year)
but just cuz I accept something don’t stop me from complainin about it …
I’m pretty picky when it comes to judging intelligence. I’m not the smartest guy in the room, but I can find him for ya …
or her, as the case may be …
(wink)
I agree that these are the choices. I believe [b] is the best choice and [c] is the worst choice.
[holding hand up for like forever, waiting to be called on]
In defense of Fitz’s tactics (arresting Blago out of bed), Fitz said the newspaper already knew that Blago was tapped, yet the paper agreed to wait before publishing, but time had run out after a few days or more, the paper went to press, so Fitz had to move. That’s the public (and likely honest) version. Yet, did Fitz somehow maybe arrange for the paper to learn early? Isn’t it key – whether schemed or innocent – that the paper found out?
LOL!
Does that work? *g*
Michael Whitney up at the Mothership on WalMart and the Employee Free Choice Act
I’ll refer back to my previous post about Blago appointing Obama’s replacement this week. He could really throw a turd into the impeachment/criminal punchbowl by naming someone like Lisa Madigan, Dan Hynes,etc as the replacement and making them turn down the job. If he really wanted to play with politicians minds he might name Obama’s buddy, State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulis or even better a Republican like Jim Oberweis.
I should explain that Oberweis is a right wing nut job who would be only too happy to serve.
>and now Fitz has his nuts in a vice
Sure he does. Just keep telling yourself that. Just like Dorothy saying “there’s no place like home”, if you say it often enough, I’m sure it’ll come true for you.
I’m prepared to accept that anyone talking about disclosure here doesn’t know the law.
Prosecutors must disclose information in a way that is timely for the defense to make their case in a trial. Unless you believe that Fitz will not do so AT SOME FUTURE POINT WHEN A TRIAL MIGHT HAPPEN, then there is no issue at all of disclosure.
I’m also prepared to accept that anyone talking about Fitz’ ethics because he may have tainted the jury pool by giving information to a legislative committee of portions of the evidence doesn’t know the law.
There is no absolute standard against biasing the opinions of potential jurors. It’s something to be avoided, since it can be costly monetarily — that’s because if a judge can’t find untainted jurors, the venue might have to changed. That is the defendant’s recourse in the event of a biased jury pool. So providing evidence is not forbidden. It must be balanced against other considerations. In this case, the existence of a legislative committee looking into impeachment is a huge consideration that carries substantial weight.
I suggest a little remedial law school for those who have been advancing these arguments, particularly for those who have been insulting Fitz based on their own ignorance.
well, thanks for exposin your ignorance
you can “accept” any kinda bullshit you wanna spread, but there ARE some people who know the law around here, smartass, and not all of them are lawyers
that’s why I didn’t discuss the rules of disclosure
I do understand enough to know that the legal requirements for disclosure in THIS legal case are being stretched or intersected by the disclosure requirements of an parallel impeachment process (which some people insist must be a “Fair” process)
and I can understand enough to know Fitz is out of line with the offer of a partial disclosure (is that a self negating term ???)
I am willing to allow one of two opposing standards of behavior here. Either fuck the guy over, or give him a fair trial
don’t try to fuck the guy over while acting like you’re operating within a “fair” process
I don’t mind having a “Blagoff can’t win” Impeachment, but don’t try to act like you’re being “FAIR” when you’re playin “Blaggof can’t win”
Fitz is trying to have his cake and eat it too
and fwiw, blanket statements like that are the sign of a fool or a troll, just so youse know …
Yeah, nobody could be as bright as you. Thank you for gracing us with your superior knowledge oh great one. People who go to such great lengths to tell everybody how smart they are and how stupid the others are are usually heinously wrong on both counts. You fit the bill perfectly bubba.
IANAL so fwiw, my take is that circumstances (Governor selling Senate seat of President-Elect, newspaper publishing, legislative ”rights”, etc.) put Fitzgerald way outside his comfort zone and he’s in some ways making up the rules as he goes.
And not finding black and white clean lines to guide him. And Fitz is a ”bright line” kinda guy.
On the one hand, he is under real political pressure by the Illinois legislature to accommodate their own real need to do their duty wrt impeachment, and on the other hand he has his prosecutorial responsibilities (and ethics) to comply with the law.
I don’t think Pat particularly likes the position he is in, and further, I don’t think he quite knows how to serve both masters.
This isn’t Fitzgerald’s finest hour, nor do I think it would be on any other prosecutor’s wishlist of things they’d want to be stuck in the middle of.
When politics and the law collide, neither is well served.
I think BoxTurtle is right: Fitz fucked up, thinking that he could force Blago out, with just the little bits and pieces. Now, he’s trying for larger chunks, to see if that will buck up the legislature’s case without screwing up his own.
As I said on the other thread, I also think that Emanuel has a little bidding-tar on himself, prolly not enough to be indicted, but enough that he may need to go under the bus. And if that’s true, then Fitz is in the position of having this partial hammer on Obama (which will get a LOT bigger come Jan. 20th.) which he may not want.
I think there are a fair number of semi-intelligent repubs and independents who are shitting green nickels because they understand that if Obama gets hamstrung by the wingnuts early on, then, ZERO consumer optimism: and there is a fair chance that what is already a dire situation with America, both in terms of the economy and of Bush’s petro-borgs-r-us foreign policy, could easily turn into a full-on AND immediate, catastrophe. I don’t think they want to kill the goose. And if Fitz waits until the confirmation hearings crank up, and then releases tapes or transcripts that put Emanuel in the bidding contest, even subtly, then it will be a larger hit on O., and things could get really dicey.
George Bush has left us the grenade, with the pin 99 percent out. No one in their right mind should want to pull it the rest of the way by having this shit come down after Obama takes office. If there need to be resignations from Team Obama, fer chrissakes, let them happen now.
And, OldGold: I, too, am glad to see some people talking about the base-metal showing through Fitz’s gold plating. :o)
28 – but isn’t he asking for ex parte turnover of the non-redacted?
emph added
That sounds to me like they are going to go singleton to the court with the full recordings and the redactions and are asking for the court to ok the turnover to the committee of the redactions.
If that’s it and I were the court and trying to hoe the row, I’d say screw that, puppy. Or words to that effect. I understand they’ve been dealing with lots of classified info cases in that office, but Blagojevich isn’t one of them and since when does the prosecutor get to have all these ex partes with the court, just to cozy through and pick out leaks without the defense having any discovery opportunities at all?
It’ll be what it’ll be, but I still think he has been handling this case a world of difference from how he did the Plame case. He seems to have been much less concerned about the evidence he was finding of scorched earth destructions of evidence and emails in the WH and OVP(DOJ, CIA, FBI, etc.) and making sure that got leaked and criticized in an open presser than he has been about the “sale” of a Senate seat (like 90% of the sitting Senators haven’t basically been bought in one way, shape or form)
I guess it could be live and learn (dump it all in the public forum and then it’s harder for anyone to pressure his office to have to deep six things) – or not.
“I still think he has been handling this case a world of difference from how he did the Plame case”
Well, yeah: they’re very different cases from entirely different worlds.
Can we list all the ways?
In US v Scootzie the folks to whom he was answerable were actually on the defendant’s side.
In US v Scootzie he received the precise parameters of his authority in writing, and somehow got that expanded a bit, but not to anything approaching the regular, everyday authority he has in relation to the alleged crimes his office in Illinois is involved with every day.
And that’s just two.
30 – I was just going by the excerpts above, and ex parte in cameras and profferred redactions without access to all evidence and participation at the ex parte doesn’t seem to me to be a painfully clear way of making sure that full and fair objections can be made.
Not that Blagojevich will have any, but I really don’t like seeing things done that way but maybe I have a mis-impression from the excerpts without reading the whole thing.
Agreed.
38 –
Nah – don’t buy that. When he tells the state legislature that xyz things he doesn’t want them to do, bc they will hurt his criminal investigation, he pretty much ties their hands. You can say he’s only urging, and IMO they should push back, but realistically they can’t do much (just as Obama’s crew couldn’t) without his blessing once he’s invoked the sanctity of his ongoing crim investigation.
45 –
It should be, but that’s not what he’s doing at all. He’s picking a few out of context juicey bits and telling them they can’t have access to witnesses who will give context (oh, forfend, for you will hurt my criminal investigation) and other bits that might not only not be as juicey, but might not make things sound as one sided as the complaint. And he’s asking a court to bless that mess – a court that is just getting rolling with the criminal case and doesn’t have a clue what the entirety of the evidence will be and how the cherrypicks have been made. It’s not fair to the committees, the defendant or the court imo, and in particular not fair to the people both from a standpoint of what they are allowed to know and the manner and process that bits of knowledge are chosen for release.
Given that the factual setting here is wiretaps performed by a LAWYER acting for the Federal Government, of a State Government chief executive, I think you are wrong wrong wrong on this and the framing oversimplifies the situation. If the lawyer and Federal gov wiretapped info to which a defense counsel can show they had no right, or which is subject to protection under protective orders issued in connection with the tap – there is no way it is ethical or appropriate for the lawyer to hand over that info to the media, to political friends or enemies, OR TO the legislature. And given that the setting, further, is one where the lawyer is picking and choosing what the legislature gets to see, rather than giving all allegedly legal taps – you cannot help but taint the process.
I think this is wrong too. Impeachment proceedings aren’t free for alls, exempt from any appearance of propriety and process and if they are allowed to be otherwise – society certainly pays a steep price for that as well. It is far too easy for someone with the power of a USAs office and the kind of corrupted DOJ that we know we have now, to set precedent of going around and trying cases in the media and cherrypicking leaks, all to accomplish political goals AND collaterally taint jury pools to accomplish prosectuorial goals. I didn’t like what was done in Spitzer’s case and I’m not happy with what has been done here so far. I did defend the almost unbearable restraint that was exercised vis a vis Rove and Libby and Cheney, but you can’t have this both ways – where it’s ok to buttscratch the years away for Rove, but try Blagojevich in the press to the point of starting an impeachment process and then cherrypick away through the impeachment process to insure a politically favorable outcome that will also help convince juries pre-proceedings.
59 – Yet you think Fitzgerald was right in withholding the Rove evidence that we, the people, owned? And the evidence he found of other mis and mal feasance unrelated to his mandate, including Hatch and Presidential records act violations and destruction of evidence for crimes unrelated to his mandated investigation? I don’t get that – but in any event, “we” don’t “own” it unless it was legally and validly obtained and found to be admissible in a public proceeding.
The whole thing about law and process and procedure is you have to approach it all from the assumption of innocence. Obviously, none of us assume Blagojevich is innocent, so it makes it very easy to justify what is being done. But if Blago were likable and innocent and the prosecutor didn’t appear with a rentahalo, I think you’d be taking a different route on some of this. Of course, that’s does involve a real leap of imagation, to come up with “what if Blagojevich were likable and innocent?”
72 – don’t forget Kentucky
You always interpret my stunted jive so eloquently. Thank you. I agree with whomever above said that Fitz was between a rock and a hard place; he is, but a good deal of that here is, quite unfortunately, of his own making. By the same token, a lot would be there no matter what he did. My preference would be for him to tell the state legislature to develop their own evidence; the US Attorney’s Office is not their investigative arm. And the press conference kicking everything off was ill advised.
Sorry, did not mean to snub Kentucky; it is just that the school system here is so bad that I didn’t know any better.
85 – actually, you and I have been through that on another thread and I left my “lay it out” there.
But as to your first point, “In US v Scootzie the folks to whom he was answerable were actually on the defendant’s side” I have to channel Pink and say, “so what?” Or not. That’s really the point, isn’t it? That if he’s answerable to a Republican agenda, he handles things one way, if not – he handles them a different way.
And as to, “In US v Scootzie he received the precise parameters of his authority in writing, and somehow got that expanded a bit, but not to anything approaching the regular, everyday authority he has in relation to the alleged crimes his office in Illinois is involved with every day.” the issues here, though, have nothing to do with his “everday authority in relation to the alleged crimes…” and instead have to do with his extraordinary attempts to maneuver a legislative branch and an impeachment proceedings through his office cherrypicks.
Did he go to Walton to ask for permission to release info to Congress when Waxman et al hit him up, the way he has with Blago? Not so much. And if he was uncovering evidence of destruction of evidence, violations of Hatch and Presidential Records acts etc., while they weren’t in his charging mandate he certainly could have/should have a) asked for a further expansion, b) asked for someone to be appointed to investigate those matters, c) asked for authority to make a report to Congress, etc. etc. etc.
Right now you are defending, not his criminal investigatory and charging acts, but his thrusting himself into the legislative proceeding and manipulating that proceeding. Certainly, he has no “day to day authority” to do that, just as he had no “day to day authority” to make charges for destruction of evidence unrelated to the crimes he was investigating – but he found a way to do one, but not the other, and that, even when “the other” falls within the umbrella of his professional and ethical duties while “the one” does not. IMO, FWIW
And that’s just two.
You seem to think Fitz is acting on his own here.
[1] It was the impeachment committee that approached him about what could be released for its purposes that the prosecution would regard as least potentially injurious to the investigation [and possibly or inevitably impending indictment].
[2] Even then, it’s inconceivable that Fitz would take out this filing without notifying DOJ HQ about the request, or without either his recommendation being endorsed by DOJ HQ or in a way that flies in the face of what direction DOJ HQ decides to go.
This isn’t some imperious maitre d’ acting on his own; however, as I pointed out previously, from my own personal experiences, it’s the lawyer on the front lines who gets the honor of taking on the fire … unless of course it works out so well, or so spectacularly badly, there’s money to be made in writing a book about it all.
72 – You know, we had the Gov (Fletcher) who not only pardoned all his pals, but was going to pardon himself as well. Then the AG who wanted to run for Gov himself, but who had “promised” he wouldn’t run as long as the case was pending against Fletcher – so there was a last minute deal done with the Gov just in time for the AG to run in the primaries.
Night all – LD, we kinda disagree, but in my heart of hearts, I think we’d be disagreeing less if the prosecutor was someone else and the Defendant was someone else too.
“I think we’d be disagreeing less if the prosecutor was someone else and the Defendant was someone else too”
Ah, but as you’ve framed that, we’d still be disagreeing – which ain’t necessarily so.
I fail to see how Fitz has to be assigned the blame for what bullets Mukasey and Fielding chose to catch for the Decider.
On more than one thread in the past I’ve admitted that, in very much less notorious circumstances, I chose the different path, or at least the winds of change allow me the luxury of claiming so.
Yet I remain loathe to condemn more than one entire generation of colleagues, in the hundreds, for having chosen to try and struggle through a trying period.
Surely you, and bmaz as well, are prepared to concede that Fitzgerald, who finished law school at or near the top of the heap, who walked away from the money from the top firms in order to prosecute, who worked through Bush 41, who worked through two Clinton terms, who has now worked almost through two terms of spectacularly moronic misanthropy, and who appears to want nothing more than to keep on keeping on, falls into that category.
Either way, the circumstances which I knew of could not necessarily be said to be endemic, and certainly were not anything on the order of what it appears Thomas Tamm saw; nor necessarily are those which Fitzgerald has seen, some, and perhaps most, or at least the most salient of which, may well be about to be made public anyway, categorically different.
Look – What Genson has claimed as his client’s right is precisely what his client is getting: a shot in the courts at challenging the evidence obtained through the wiretaps as being obtained legally.
He’s getting more, since in the normal course all this could not happen until after formal indictment, in the context of a pre-trial suppression hearing.
It may turn out that Fitz is guilty of hubris, such as by supposing that the “relevant” wiretaps are legal when they might not turn out to be so. But I expect that if there’s any real chance of that, he would have taken instructions from higher up before going this route. Instead, given his track record even just on this investigative trail, I expect Genson has been talking out of his hat.
[Not that there’s anything wrong with that.]
what about impeachments ???
where is that written ??? (no disrespect intended)
I been askin for a while; what are the hard and fast rules of impeachment. I understand that each State could have it’s own procedure, and that each would probably be slightly different from federal procedure. But there has to be some set of rules, or a list of common practices for impeachment, or something. So where is it ???
other than the constitutionally mandated vote requirement for conviction, and an unmandated expectation of some degree of human decency I ain’t seen any rules for impeachment
so what keeps impeachment from being a free-for-all ???
keep in mind, I once watched a game where the only rule was that “you can’t kick an unconscious man”, so I’ll accept almost any kind of rules …
and I’ll apologize to Louisiana and Alaska for my unintended slight, maybe Kentucky too, but alabama can kiss my ass
I understand that there are rules for impeachment within the legislative body itself, but I also understand that the legislative body can suspend its’ own rules, if it wants too
I must have read Roberts’ rules of order in a past life or something …
so there really ain’t no rules
Turns out that Robert’s Rules of Order were written by Ensign Pulver
Doug Roberts: Doc, he lies in his sack all day long, bores me silly with great, moronic plots against the captain. He’s never carried out one of them.
Ensign Pulver: I haven’t, huh?
Doug Roberts: No, Frank, you haven’t. What ever happened to those marbles you were gonna put in the captain’s overhead so they’d roll around all night and keep him awake?
Ensign Pulver: Now you’ve gone too far. Now you’ve asked for it.
[Pulls out a box]
Ensign Pulver: What does that look like? Five marbles. Got another one in my pocket. Six marbles. I’m looking for marbles all day long!
And, so am I, all day long!
Totally OT, but something I assume EW will post on later:
U.S. Agrees to a Stake in GMAC
Guess last Friday’s deadline wasn’t working out to well for GMAC’s investors, so instead, the US public gets to belly up to the bar…again.
Eh, was written the second the govt. accelerated GMAC’s bid to be a bank holding company. This is, I think, part of the general plan that was hatched up under the umbrella of “the bailout”.
Blago’s savvy counsel, with a cynical assist from the GOP and their acolytes, is going to make one hell of a stink in the court of public opinion about an impeachment process that only includes part of the prosecutor’s evidence.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole shittaree could wind up in the laps of the Supremes…for various reasons?
BTW, the idea that Blago is going to go ahead and make the appointment, I think, is ludicrous. What’s the new appointee going to do—work the Senate and shake hands with:
“HI! I’m your new compeer…courtesy of the guy who lost that impeachment-investigation vote, 113-0, and who is about to be indicted. Where’s the Bill-Hopper; I got some ideas…”?
92 – sure he’s acting on his own in picking and choosing what he does and doesn’t want to pursue or block. He was approached by all kinds of committees on other matters and sat mum and/or referred over. Main Justice didn’t call him out of the blue to tell him to file a motion to release 4 tapes and uh, could he find 4 good ones? 96 – you’re picking on straw and looking at Mukasey and Fielding (don’t forget McNulty, Margolis and Comey) and not the specifics of his own decisions that I referenced.
99 –
If you mean me, LD, you aren’t reading what I’m typing (or typed then) Given the way he was appointed and the statements at the time and the issues of confidential treatment of evidence etc. I thought at the time and still do that he not giving unredacted interviews over was within professional standards and was what he had outlined from the beginning that he would be doing for that matter. My dispute isn’t what he did then on those kinds of items, it is what he is doing now and how it compares. That’s why I do keep saying it may be a live and learn situation as well, for that matter. I also think that as information has come out about things that he has to have known and come across in his investigations (although outside of his mandate – such as Pres Rec Act violations and destruction of evidence relating to other congressional investigations and cases pending the judicial branch) he had duties separate and apart from his mandate and there isn’t much evidence that he did anything in respect of those items.
On the legal tactics front, I think I’m quite a bit like bmaz in his assessment at 102.
Where I diverge quite a bit from you and even I think from bmaz, goes to your point here:
I think you dropped a word or two (something I do all the time in hurried comments here) but I’m guessing the category you mean is something like “one of the good guys” and that’s were I do differ, but not so much because of Rove, Libby, Blago or any of that. When you challenged me on that before I laid ou the response to you, but given my time back to that thread it was way EPU’d so I don’t know if I’m just being repetitive here or not. I can’t put anyone who voluntarily and knowingly has been working for torturers for years in the “good guys” category. You made the “work in the system to save the system” argument and I gave my response. You show up every day to do hair and makeup for snuff films then say at least YOU don’t kill anyone and people should look nice before they die – – it doesn’t really sell me on a “good guy” label, no matter how well you do your job.
bmaz,
Think what you like, but you and others have been wildly commingling the legal and legislative processes with no reference to what rules apply and exactly when they come into play.
Impeachment is not a legal process as you know. The rules of evidence do not apply. But the rules of evidence in a trial are about allowing the defense to make their case to a jury. Questions of what the defense should be allowed to see and use relate to the discovery phase of the trial.
That’s a completely separate question from biasing the jury pool, which relates to jury selection, and which has very different remedies.
Fitz simply has no need to consider the rules of evidence at this point — he knows he’ll provide everything during the discovery phase. And the issue of biasing the jury pool is a small one, with specific remedies, that will be decided at a later date. Frankly, the evidence released well before trial relating corruption in Ryan’s office to the death of the Willis children was far more salacious than this stuff, and had a much stronger impact on Illinoisans, yet the trial was held here.
You might notice that in the more carefully phrased write-ups, the issue of what can/should be released is treated as a matter of “jeopardizing the criminal investigation”. In other words, the actual issue Fitz addressed is what to turn over without giving witnesses the ability to coordinate their testimony before they’ve made statements to the US Attorney. For example, he doesn’t want to let Nils Larsen, Zell’s financial adviser, know what has been recorded until Larsen has told him his version. Larsen might discover that the key moment proving guilt came during a 2-minute break required by FBI rules on taping irrelevant conversation, so he’d have no incentive to testify. The prisoner’s dilemma is a harsh one, but no rules of evidence require prosecutors to ease that dilemma.
Even when, in poorly thought through pieces, legal experts commit the same foul of commingling the legal and legislative process, they at least follow through on the thought, as in the Trib’s “we’re fighting shadows” piece, where Polales argues that Fitz’s release might prompt Genson to “argue that the transcripts represent conversations taken out of context and request that more recorded conversations, perhaps beneficial to the defense, be turned over to the panel.”
That’s it. That’s the sole potential legal outcome of providing incomplete tapes (or incomplete transcripts, for that matter) … the legal defense will be able to ask for, see and hear complete versions. There is a time when they can ask for them. That time is the discovery phase of a trial, should any occur. There is no other recourse, just as there is no path for a defense complaint over the partial transcripts provided in the criminal complaint. The patient answer of the US Atty is simply “you’ll get everything in discovery.”
Till then, all is the posturing of a defense attorney who has no legal case to argue, but is being paid to muddy the waters in a political hearing. I do get angry, and perhaps arrogant, at people who help him do so, because I live in the state that’s been on sale for the last 10 years.
One last point, which I think should be a starting point for all of these discussions, a “Fitz!” comment at the top of each thread about the impeachment. That is “Ockham’s Razor!”
In other words, the standard the legislature needs to meet is not “innocent till proven guilty”, but rather “entities should not be multiplied”. If the legislature is convinced there was an impeachable offense, that’s sufficient, and they need not deal with competing but arcane theories of how Blagojevich might have had a conversation demanding a Tribune editor be fired in return for $100 million in state money without actually meaning that the editor needed to be fire in return for the $100 mill. While it is possible within the empire of the air that multiple entities may have conspired to get Blags to say those words, repeatedly, and heatedly, without meaning those words, here on the empire of the earth we need not deal with them all. The simplest explanation is that Blagojevich was offering our money in return for Trib editorial support. At this point, I don’t for the moment care if that’s criminal, because I know it’s impeachable.
After posting, I see that bmaz is staking out different ground than the other critics who think Fitz has broken the rules of evidence. He says the release isn’t illegal or even unprofessional, but “unsavory”, and the question is “whether he should be deciding selectively which snippits to release and whether he should be the one advocating to the court to release them”.
That’s much more reasonable ground.
But here, again we need to frame the prosecutorial issue correctly. A request from a legislative panel of impeachment has a substantial claim on Fitz. He is not “selectively deciding what to release”. Instead, he’s following a standard — he should release what he can, because of the weight of the request, but he should avoid releasing things that “jeopardize the criminal investigation” by tipping off witnesses to what we know and what we don’t know.
He seems to have followed this standard. I think your description of his behavior as “unsavory” and “selective” requires you to demote the claims of the legislature. Perhaps you do, and I could see that as reasonable, though I disagree. But that’s where the issue lies, I think — does the legislature have a strong claim to see evidence?
Do you think the criminal prosecution is more important than the impeachment? I don’t.
oldgold,
I do think the criminal prosecution is more important, but I can understand why you might feel differently.
I think this is interesting, from two days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12…..tml?ref=us
I hadn’t previously noticed – in response to Genson’s request that the committee subpoena two Obama aides and Congressman Jackson, Fitz replied that no, he would prefer if they did not subpoena the two Obama aides, Jackson, nor Nils Larsen, the Trib executive V.P.
The Larsen mention is gratuitous, since Genson hadn’t sought a Larsen subpoena. Why did Fitz mention him? I think Fitz is showing that the case is about more than the Senate seat, and reminding people that the Trib allegations are very serious and very strong. We should remember, it’s the Trib stuff that kept him lying awake at night.
I think you could make a pretty strong case that Fitz sees press freedom as preeminent, but defines it somewhat differently than is traditional. While reporters saw their right to protect sources as an essential part of their personal freedom, Fitz seems to define their freedom in relation to the government … freedom from tampering by the government. So the right to keep sources secret was only an instrumental right, valid till it began to protect the government’s ability to force its own version onto the public. And while many of us see selling the Senate seat as the supreme horror here, he may well believe that selling the Senate seat was a crime, but ultimately a crime whose outcome the voters could judge, while bribing the chief news source in the state to give you favorable coverage was a more heinous crime striking at the right of the voters to know what is happening.
I’m not sure how far I’d be willing to go in characterizing that as a defining part of his world view, or in supporting it. It’s just a thought that occurred to me.
I feel that from an out-of-state perspective, there’s a sense that this is completely beyond the pale, and that impeachment will take away the Governor’s ability to sell the Senate seat, and that’s that.
From an Illinois perspective, the problem is that this sort of thing is not beyond the pale. It’s a way of life. Impeachment has no staying power. Once he’s impeached, he can begin to rebuild his corrupt life, going to work for an asphalt firm, and everyone can go back to what they’ve been doing. Prison sentences will be more persuasive.
Was it fun?