Firz !!

i second that

I mean FITZ !(Damn-it)

fitz is my hero! (swoon)

I’m Fitzing too……..

Good morning, Christy.

He is so dam cute, I swear. I got a nice spot under my bed for his shoes….

Nice post, Christy. As an Illinois native I’m proud Fitz is working for me.

Will he ever get back to Plame, though?

And let’s not forget his fine staff! hmmnnnn

Go read (and give mucho stars to) Susie Madrak’s “Bloggers Are Mean and They Suck”
Hits about everything… (sorry, no clue how to do embedded links)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpo…..hvBHNlYwM-

Hamburger at 8 — Just because you don’t see things going on publicly, doesn’t mean he’s not working the CIA leak case. In fact, I’m pretty certain he’s been doing quite a bit of work on it — we just can’t see the behind-the-scenes maneuvers. Hang in there…

Wow, a freudian comment (I’m laughing to myself, about myself). But, seriously….Great Post. I agree wholeheartedly.

Hear, Hear, Christy. Fitz is like a light shining in the darkness, and it would be awful to have it extinguished. More important, it would remove all doubt that Bush cares one whit about the rule of law. Whether Bush would do it because it’s the right thing, or because it’s a good political move, it just matters that he make the reappointment.

[P.S. first sentence after the blockquote - should that be “For every new naysayer out there who calls us, progressive bloggers…”]

For some reason, Fitz has always reminded me of Eliot Ness. I hope Bush reappoints him too.

OT-Fact check has picked up on the fake Lamont bumper sticker

“Joe Lieberman’s latest ad shows a supposed Lamont bumper sticker and website address that don’t really exist.”

Anne at 13 — thanks much. That’s what I get for blogging before I’d even had time for my first cuppa coffee. LOL

Thanks for posting on this. If enough bloggers post about this maybe it will generate some pressue. Hey, presidential wannabes, calling for Fitzgerald’s reappointment would put you on the right side of the integrity issue.

When is his appointment up for renewal, and what would happen to his work on pending cases if he was not re-appointed – or – promoted out of the position like his supportive superior was……?

After this bush debacle is over, I would like to see Patrick Fitzgerald as the next US Attorney General. That would be something to really hope for. To not just clean up corruption in Illinois but to clean up the corruption that we seem to be swimming in everywhere.

Go Fitz

I’d like to see him as our next President. I imagine he’d be fun to have a beer with.

Bush’s failure to reappoint Fitzgerald would tell the nation that he doesn’t mind the kind of corruption that infects Chicago and Illinois. It will be the kind of surrender to the most destructive kind of politics that have disgusted so many Americans.

And……? The naivete of this statement is breathtaking.

Assuming as I expect that Fitz is not reappointed as US Attorney, does that affect his appointment in the Plame investigation?

NJ could use a Fitzgerald, before the Democratic crooks and the Republican loonies drag the state down the toilet. Corzine’s bean-counters are probably the state’s last hope.

Mikey at 18 — his appointment has already expired. USAttys often go well beyond their appointment time, however — they just keep doing the job until a new attorney is brought in and appointed. But this questions was raised in last week’s press conference by a Chicago reporter, and it’s still hanging out there in terms of closing the deal — thought it was time to raise the question to a higher decibel level if I can.

But Fitz will continue to do his job, both in Illinois (and further on the Plame case, which is not connected to the USAtty gig) in the meantime.

The interesting thing to me is that, to the best of my knowledge, the Republicans have not made an attempt to smear Fitz or portray him as an out-of-control rogue prosecutor (I’d say it was due to lack of material, except that’s never stopped them before).

I think it makes it harder to (in effect) fire Fitz if they haven’t first made a case for why he should go. In the corporate world, you would at least gin up some negative performance views before terminating someone for fake cause.

It’s also possible that they’re actually counting on Fitz to take care of their Cheney Problem, but that would be a dangerous game.

For this President, there is no such thing as a “Conscience of the President”. That trait left the Bush family several generations ago.

Fitz would make a fabulous U.S. Attorney General. But anyone is going to look good after this Albo Gonzo guy.

Is Judiciary also discussing Haynes for the 4th Circuit today?

I thought Leahy had a hold on him, but am hearing that Haynes is back in play.

If it’s integrity we are talking about, perhaps this isn’t really OT.

The Hill has an article about the lack of a stampede toward support for Joenertia, which includes a count of supporters among his Senate colleagues.

Christy, I reckon you, Mary, lhp, imm et al. will have more to say later about the Pentagon’s move?

Barbara Starr broke it on CNN about an hour ago, but now they’ve clammed up. NYT has it in a little-bitty link beneath another story on their homepage, but zip in WaPo, LAT, ToL, or The Guardian.

Christy, is there some sort of deadling for reappointing Fitzgerald? Does his term expire on a given date?

What? the shrub has no integrity and 99% of the people reading this blog know it. The authoritarian cultist who inhabit the republican party who find some way to justify all of the cheney regimes illegal actions will simply ignore this as the have all the other crimes.

make that “deadline”…(grumble)

Eli- The press is so involved in the scandal which is why they go easy on him, I’m guessing.

Eli: They have run that one up the flagpole, but it did not take so far (we pushed back on it) and that campaign has, for now, gone dormant.

It went away as the Rove thing settled down. Emptywheel, for one, smells a wink-and-nod temporary reprieve for Rove based on his suddenly sober, forthcoming testimony.

Today in N.Y.Times

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Twenty retired military officers say they have “deep concern” about the fitness of the Defense Department’s general counsel to be a federal judge because he approved coercive techniques to interrogate terror suspects.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the officers urged a thorough examination of the role of the counsel, William J. Haynes II, in adopting policies “that compromised military values, ignored federal and international law and damaged America’s reputation and world leadership.”

The letter cited Mr. Haynes’s recommendation that dogs be used “to exploit phobias” of terror suspects.

Mr. Haynes was originally nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., in 2003. President Bush resubmitted his name last year.

The signers of the letter include a retired Marine Corps general, Joseph P. Hoar, a former commander of United States forces in the Middle East; and Lawrence B. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

egregious at 26 — yes, Haynes is back in play. Meant to mention that as well — thanks for bringing it up!

I think there are actually two things going on here. This is the quote from the press conference:

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

Mr. President, the work of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in prosecuting alleged corruption is well-known here in Chicago as well as nationally. It’s my understanding that, technically, he hasn’t been reappointed to his position and serves at your pleasure.

Do you have any plans to formally reappoint him to the post or any other position in the Department of Justice? And…

BUSH: As a special prosecutor.

QUESTION: And would you give us your assessment of the job that he’s doing?

BUSH: You know, I don’t have any plans to reappoint him because I haven’t thought about it.

BUSH: I will now think about it now that you brought it up.

The only — I can give you an assessment of what — how I thought he handled the case in Washington. I haven’t been following the cases here.

I thought, in Washington, he handled the case with professionalism. He was very professional about it. You didn’t see a lot of leaks. You didn’t see a lot of speculation. You didn’t see a lot of people, kind of, dropping a little crumb here for the press to chew on. And I really thought he handled himself well.

But as far as reappointing him as the special prosecutor, I don’t know whether the attorney general’s going to do that or not. That’s his choice to make.

Bush (technically) has no control over the appointment of Fitzgerald as Special Counsel (he isn’t a Special Prosecutor). Neither does Abu, that responsibililty falls to David Margolis, and Fitz does not need to be re-appointed to that job.

Bush effectively ducked the question of Fitz’s reappointment as US attorney. If he does nothing, it’s my understanding that Fitgerald just stays on at his job. I know he’s had Bob Kjellander in his sights and Kjellander would no doubt love to get Fitzgerald off his back, but I don’t know if they’d feel it’s worth the headlines right now to do so.

Just wanted to know if they are talking about Haynes, ie, should we be manning the fax machines?

FITZ! I feel better now. I can see the Repub’s kind of collectively holding their breath on our man Fitz right now.They don’t know any more than we do. Rove slipping out of the noose gave them pause.If anyone,Rove is THE rat.And I can SO see the bastards promoting Fitz out of his current spot. My question to that end is, promote him WHERE?

I was under the impression he got another 4 year term as of maybe October ‘05. Could be in error.

The NYT has another item of interest here too, in terms of integrity: Military Lawyers Prepare to Speak on Guantnamo

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Four years ago, the military’s most senior uniformed lawyers found their objections brushed aside when the Bush administration formulated plans for military commissions at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba. This week, their concerns will get a public hearing as Congress takes up the question of whether to resurrect the tribunals struck down by the Supreme Court.

“We’re at a crossroads now,” said John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral who was the top uniformed lawyer in the Navy until 2000 and who has been part of a cadre of retired senior military lawyers who have filed briefs challenging the administration’s legal approach. “We can finally get on the right side of the law and have a system that will pass Supreme Court and international scrutiny.”

egregious at 37 — for Haynes, a FAX is always worthwhile. From a PFAW e-mail that I got last night:

William Haynes, a primary architect of the admin’s detainee policy and Cheney CoS Addington’s chief legal ally at the Pentagon, will have a second hearing before the Senate Judic Comm tomorrow. We really need to beat this guy, and it may even be possible without a filibuster.

Some background: Haynes was successfully filibustered in the last Congress, then renominated, and then left out of the gang of 14 agreement which forestalled the nuclear option. That there’s going to be a second hearing is itself a small victory. Lindsey Graham, a former JAG during the Gulf War, seems to genuinely resent Haynes’ efforts to undermine and bypass the military justice system.

This from you don’t say, Minneapolis Star Tribune yesterday seems apropos ala Lieberman:
“A politician will do anything to keep his job-even become a patriot.”
Wm Randolph Hearst

Which CSPAN channel is carrying the Judiciary hearings?

lotus – what’s the Starr scoop – must have missed that one.

Nemmind — found it on 3.

Bush on C-SPAN live. Can’t find the Hamdan hearings.

Anne: U.S. Said to Apply Geneva Conventions to All Military Detainees

Oh, cspan3. and bush not on yet. (and who cares?)

Christy- re: your e-mail from PFAW – I no longer trust any position that Graham seems to be taking that appears at all ethical.

Nope, not on 3 either.

???

Mass murder media Iraq propagation, blogging inter tube clogging, Re-appoint lone Pat Fitzgerald or re-anoint and clone Pat Robertson.
I’m trying, I know it’s out there somewhere, something good to think about if just for a minute, ahhh yes…
shit I almost had it.
Where am I…
John Dean says were more or less fascist.
Uber almost fascist.
Fascist infancy.
Damn be full grown yet weren’t fer them inter-tubes and that meddling Fitzalfaz.
Ok Ok I got one,
Today will be the day we change this mess back around.
It’s working, I’m floating and I smell fresh coffee, thank you sunny day.

egregious 37: according to docangel at DKos the Senate Judiciary Committee will start hearings “this week”.
The link to docangel’s diary is

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/10/151339/176

(it also shows up on the list of rescued diaries on the front page).

Avila’s diary on the same topic is still on the recommended list.

YES — ON CSPAN 3

the Preznit on CSpan 1 now

thanks, lotus – looks like the left hand and the right are once again oblivious to each other. Methinks the war crimes thing is keeping a few people up at night, sweating a bit.

It’s on CSPAN 3 now.

chimpy on CNN too

zennurse says:
July 10th, 2006 at 11:26 pm (prior thread)

Let’s see if this approch will revive your sound card. Open Control Panel and select Sound And Audio Devices. Once you’re there, select the Audio tab. What device do you see selected for sound playback? Is it your sound card?

Here’s another approach to use should the first approach not work: once again, open Control Panel but this time, select System. You should see System Properties appear. When you see it, select Hardware. Next, select Device Manager. Do you see any exclamation marks in a yellow circle next to or near to sound, video, and game controllers after you click on the plus sign beside that phrase?

They likely won’t start hearing coverage until the hearing actually starts. Mercifully, the computer comes with a mute feature while Bush is on at the moment. I’m just not in the mood for him this morning…not without a lot more coffee than is healthy, anyway…

Or DoD’s trying to head-off Specter, Anne?

It looks like Bush’s foreign policy could use some of Limp-Baugh’s Viagra.

Kyrgyzstan to expel US dipolomats.

http://newsyoucanabuse.blogspo…..omats.html

-GSD

C-Span 3 has the coverage. Thank goodness for broadband…

i’m not sure I see the “great economy” that chimpster is talking about.

Thank goodness for broadband …

AMEN, Christy!

My father used to say…
“turn that boob tube off before it rots your brain”

ppp – my dad said that too

Chimpy should have read the tealeaves today before crowing about the economy.

“AP -Stocks dropped Tuesday on concern that profit and sales figures from aluminum giant Alcoa and telecommunications-equipment maker Lucent Technologies may herald a downbeat second-quarter earnings season.”

Ooops.

Well, he is going to claim a big victory now that the Pentagon isn’t torturing anyone anymore.

-GSD

Bradbury doesn’t seem to have received the memo . . .

What’s weird though is that Bush has been in Chicago twice recently and has both times praised Mayor Daley. Maybe Daley’s hitting him up to not reappoint Fitz. Maybe they share a bipartisan interest here that will result in good government.

Christy at 59: the computer comes with a mute feature while Bush is on at the moment.

Yeah, I bought one of those computers too, and my teevee has the same automatic feature.

I wonder just how they program that technology — some sort of voice recognition chip, I guess.

NYT finally ledes with its own story:

In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees

Are Dubya’s rose colored glasses DoD issue?

lotus, i think msnbc has that story too

we are in a sad place when this is breaking news: BREAKING NEWS – Pentagon says all detainees entitled to Geneva Conventions protection.

It’s hard enough to listen to Bush, but I refuse to listen to him give this speech on the great economy and how much his wonderful policies have cut the deficit in half – I did hear this morning that they were going to go wall-to-wall on this “news.”

Those of us with brain function, and rudimentary math skills, are not fooled by the numbers games they play, but this is all part of the push to the mid-terms.

Unfortunately, I’m not buying his BS – not when I’m paying $3.15/gal for regular gas and my electric bill is going up dramatically. I’m guessing there aren’t too many regular folks who will be buying it either.

so-called great economy

did anyone catch the Kos diary from ‘the gimp’?
(a diarist who comments regularly on disability issues) basically asking for help for he and his wife – extremely courageous and touching

but also sobering to see how many of us are in fact struggling – able bodied or not

So Bradbury’s position is that the Congress can interpret Common Article 3 out of practical existence?

Prof at 77 — Apparently. My understanding of international law is that we would have to repudiate the treaty as a whole in order to do that — and I’d say that isn’t really feasible, but it’s the rubber stamp Congress…so all bets are off.

Eli, there have been a few attempts to smear Fitz. Ben Stein called him a “thug” and I believe that a few of the authoritarian blanket clingers have called him “out of control.”

Never forget old Boob Woodward called Fitzgerald a “junkyard dog” but said he meant it in the most charitable of ways.

-GSD

ok, can’t watch the chimp anymore– back to the Tour de France on OLN

Senators now doing their 5-minute rounds of questioning, starting with Specter.

Bradbury, Acting Dep. AG: Not agreeing to Specter’s deadline because only the Pres. can make such commitments.

Specter: Any doubt that enemy combatants who are NOT to be tried have the right to counsel, to have an oppty to contest the reasons for their detention?

Bradbury: I would disagree.

the Preznit is in full “good ole boy” mode … replete with faux-Texas accent !

Economic Report Card– a big fat F.

go away you fake texan.

entitlement programs are a part of what made this country a good place to live. your illegal and immoral wars have raped the treasury.

Specter: Should statements obtained under torture (not his word) be automatically excluded during trials:

Shorter Bradbury: (no)

Specter: What burden of proof should be used?

Bradbury: That’s a policy question, but not necessarily a “preponderance of evidence,” perhaps only “substantial evidence.”

TRANSLATION: A “substantial evidence” standard means “just a bit more than nothing.”

Specter’s spanking that little Bradbury twit on his shiny little butt.

I seem to remember a hearing awhile back where it looked suspiciously like Rummy was surreptitously giving his questioner the finger.

Perhaps we should be talking about “integrity-ness,” the appearance of integrity for the purpose of covering a complete lack of it.

For example, the Pentagon will say that all detainees will enjoy Geneva protections, but will not do it at all, or make a public show of a few cases. There’s probably a lot more secret prisons we don’t know about.

Or, Fitzgerald will keep his job, and Scooter might get hung out to dry, but Fitz will ultimately be unable to complete his investigation due to some combination of classified information and pardons.

They’ve never been overt about being ursurpers; that’s too provocative. Besides, their attack on our institutions of government have hardly been impeded thus far.

Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.): Not asking questions, making a speech.

Thanks, Pach @33, glad to hear it. It would pose a dilemma for the Bushies to explain why, if they have no complaints about Fitz, what are their reasons for getting rid of him?

As for Haynes, I fear it will be just like Alito, where issues of ethics and moral suitability will be considered utterly irrelevant. If Abu G can be confirmed as AG, and Alito can be confirmed as an SC justice, then Haynes should get at least 60-65 votes.

Prof at 88 — I’m enjoying Leahy not allowing a filibuster, which has been the Administration tactic (which Bradbury is doing right now…). Yay, and now Leahy is cutting him off…

speak the truth Amen and Amen.

OT–Explosions on trains in Mumbai– at least 5.

Hit the commuter rail network at rush hour.

CNN (muted here) now back on detainee issue — Toobin opining on the phone, apparently.

Leahy: Pres. can’t take the law into his own hands, Republicans and Democrats alike believe that. (NOT direct quotes)

Bradbury: It has never been the case that the procedures of military commissions have been established by Congress. With 20/20 hindsight we are where we are and the Supreme Court has spoken and we must work together.

Leahy: Glad to hear that. (He is just making weak points.) Does Admin. believe the court martial proceeding should be used?

B: No.

L: We have a letter from retired JAGs and generals about this.

B: Court martial proceedings are entirely inappropriate. The “hearsay rules” are not appropriate. International criminal tribunals trying war crimes allow hearsay. We don’t think it’s appropriate to start with the UCMJ and its full panoply of procedures.

Dell’Orto, Principal Deputy GC of Dod: Agree.

I don’t know which is harder to listen to: Bush talking about the military which he tried so hard not to serve in, or Bush talking economics and mathematics, about which he clearly knows very little.

Bobmay, India, too..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200….._explosion

Bumble Sessions questioning now.

Speechifying, rather.

I want some of what he’s smoking…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..s/rumsfeld

Anne, Here is a list, off the top of my head, of everything we are paying more for at my house: property taxes, gasoline, natural gas (for heat), sales tax (up 2%), interest on our credit cards, groceries, tolls (an everyday cost when commuting), and of course, our health insurance premiums and deductibles, and prescriptions. I can’t think what hasn’t gone up. And, though lucky to have jobs, our wages are stagnant.
I think you’re right—regular folks aren’t going to hear this “rosy” story about the economy and decide that everything is fine.

Will Bush’s relatively feckless, limp and hedged response towards North Korea cause some renewed dismay among the authoritarian 23% percent of his base?

Oh yeah and China says: “Hands off North Korea”.

http://www.rawstory.com/showar…..NlYwN0bWE-

-GSD

Sessions: do you think we gotta read ‘em the Constitution [SIC!] before questioning them?

How do these monsters from this administration sleep at night?

there was also mayhem and death in Srinagar earlier today.

Sessions (R-Ala): Are we gonna have every witness who was present at the scene (in these trials). Soldier’s kick in doors; they don’t maintain a chain of custody. Do we have to bring Iraqi citizens because they may have been a witness? I’m a prosecutor; I know how strict the rules are regarding coerced confessions. Miranda exclusionary rule. We give ‘em all these warnings. Do you think they are required?

Dell’Orto: Senator, under the UCMJ the Miranda rights kick in before they do in the US civilian court system.

Sessions: We’d be providing terrorists greater privileges than Americans?

Dell’Orto: Yes, sir.

Sessions: Regarding coercion, we don’t allow any (in the US civilian criminal court system). (Gives example of a police officer asking questions . . . .)

Feinstein now on.

If that’s the same Dennis Byrne I remember from my years in Chicago, this is something. That guy thinks Adam and Eve spoke English while riding dinosaurs to Church for Christmas services, and believes as much as Bush does that Jeebus invented the butterfly ballot.
Of course, a lot of those types (John Kass, resident moron at the Trib) like to inflate the depth and breadth of Daley’s corruption so they can think they’re great brave muckrakers out of The Front Page.
Gee, exaggerating the strength and nefariousness of their enemies to make themselves feel and look braver and tougher. It’s like a virus.

DiFi questioning now — no speech, just straight to Qs. How many detainees total (1K).

Sorry, I can’t type fast enough to do this.

Go, PROF!

KARMA is gonna get these “monsters”. Ask Kenny-Boy.

Angie,

I am sure they sleep like kittens. Cheney sleeps like Dracula in a box of oil soaked earth.

-GSD

Feinstein: What is the detainee population today?

Dell’Orto: About 1000.

F: How many have had hearings?

D: At Guantanamo they have had status review hearings. (?)

F: So everybody has had a hearing. How many convictions? (She doesn’t understand what is a status review hearing!)

D: Well, those are hearings on whether they are “unlawful combatants.”

F: All 425. We also have an annual status….

D: This morning’s NY Times says … (Then I think she mixed that up with the Financial Times?)

they were careful to say the DoD does Sec.3 of Geneva — but what about the CIA ?

Never forget old Boob Woodward called Fitzgerald a “junkyard dog” but said he meant it in the most charitable of ways.

I remember reading “junkyard dog prosecutor” and thinking “Excellent.” The Bushies deserve and require nothing less.

Thanks to folks for the realtime blogging of hearing info. Sounds like “That’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it.”…combined w/”Geneva? That’s a font!”
——-
Unfortunately, this unit today is living up to ‘our’ name (both ‘blank’ and ‘kludge’) w/regards live streaming CSpan…

Fresh thread for the hearing gang. Thought you’d be ready for one. :)

both FT & NYTimes have major articles — FT hit first

Hamdan applies to ALL in US custody, *ilson, DoD or othewise.

OT,

One of my favorite singer/songwriters, Syd Barrett, is dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ent…..169344.stm

His voice was as great as Lennon’s, and Piper at the Gates of Dawn is possibly the greatest psychedelic record ever made.

Feinstein: I know you regard the Geneva Conventions as vague. Are they being carried out?

Dell’Orto: Yes.

F: Bradbury, on page 4 you say it’s not possible to provide Miranda rights, right to counsel, rules of evidence, reliable non-hearsay evidence, sworn testimony. Based on all the areas you think are not possible to grant in Guantanamo, do you believe G still serves a useful purpose, or would it be better to have a (military) commission in a surrounding (where it’s easier to get evidence). (What’s she mean, in Iraq?)

Bradbury: Don’t believe that Miranda warnings and right to counsel should be immediate, but later. (Prof note: sounds right, in a war setting.)

Oh yeah, and fuck me if I can remember how to use html tags.

Someone else live-blog for a while.

I’m sorry, tommy. R.I.P.

Over to the other thread. (But someone else should live-blog.)

How do these monsters from this administration sleep at night?

Like babies.

Of the whiny-ass titty variety.

“Rise If Possible,” lotus!

GSD 101 …authoritarian 23% percent of his base?
I picked that 23% out of KO’s John Dean interview too. It really leapt out at me; let’s all continue to flog it, please. Makes the hard-righters look like the minority freaks that they are, de-legitimizes anything they say. “Oh, they just have authoritarian personality disorder.”

Christy,

What a pleasure to see this as the first post of the day.

Thank you so much.

I know I tend to be a bit of a worrywort when it comes to my recurring fear of Saturday Night Massacre. Thank you for taking it seriously and trying to do something about it.

On a thread yesterday someone asked about a refence in the Yahoo editorial about Pat having good people backing him and I said I thought that reference might include us.

If we do noting else but offer moral support, I think that is a nice thing. Actually, the readership here has become so large and it’s members so influential, that I think support like this has quite a bit of practical effect as well.

I think Bush’s non-answer was yet another trial balloon to see if they could sack Pat w/o blowback. I am much more intrigued to know why the reporter asked the question in the first place.

Was the reporter hearing rumors of imminet firing and trying to raise awaremenss? was the question a plant so Bush could float the aforementioned trial balloon? was the reporter just a Fitz fan trying to force Bush to commit to another 4 year term for Pat?

Not for nuthin’ but the willingness and ability of your US Atty to sheild you and go to bat for you creates a climate wherein AUSAs can do their best and most courageous work. I have worked for bosses who would do that and did the best work of my life for them. Ihave worked for bosses who’s idea of supporting me when politiicans complained, was to give me raise and promote me out of a position of usefulness into a pretty office with a nice view where I couldn’t cause anyone any grief.

I know that the powers that be in Chicago have attampted to go after memebers of pat’s staff for daring to do the right thing and that he has never hessitated to put himself between them and his AUSAs and has protected his people so that they could be free to do their jobs w/o intimidation.

And he has done so by some of the most creative lawyering I have ever seen. He just makes me smile sometimes.

This kind of leadership is very empowering to an office like his. It let’s his troops find their own courage. It will effect their development as lawyers and as people for the rest of their lives and pay dividends for years to come.

he is nurturing the next generation of prosecutors like himself. Think about the power of that.

Correction (my 6:46 am post):

zennurse says:
July 10th, 2006 at 11:26 pm (prior thread)

Let’s see if this approch approach will revive your sound card.

…authoritarian 23% percent of his base?
I picked that 23% out of KO’s John Dean interview too. It really leapt out at me

If it’s 23% of the population, it’s about 80% of his base.

I was in the kitchen for that part, so I thought he said 43%, and I was very afraid. Thank God for cable boxes that can “rewind”…

Christy,

Since this is the Fitz thread, I’m leaving this here: did you notice you were the featured youtube in emptywheel’s post on Rove yesterday? *g*

Eli 128, I think that 23% of the population belong 100% to the right base. So maybe the unpersuadables = 23% another 10% too stupid to live, caps out the true base at 33%. Anyone else can be persuaded with the right framing.

op99, I think we’re saying the same thing.

No offense … but screw “Fitz.” He not only dropped the ball; he stepped on it and fell on his face. Three years, millions of dollars, the fervent hope of millions of us … and we get Scooter Freaking Libby? Yes, Fitz … investigate a Democratic governor or just go away.

From Chi,
Fitz focuses on the low hanging fruit, and works his way up the tree. It can take years. When B was in town, he said Fitz is doing a heckuva job. I suspect he really does think dick’s off the hook. Big mistake.

btw Chicago tried going clean in the 80s and got chaos. Since daley, trains run on time, trees get planted. Be careful what you wish for.

no direct link to specific post

July 6, 2006 — In Addington, CIA LeakGate Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has likely met his match. Addington never liked independent counsels let alone special prosecutors. The mere fact that Fitzgerald was threatening the unitary executive would have prompted Addington to pull out all the stops. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Addington likely interfered in the Fitzgerald Grand Jury process. The word in Washington is that Fitzgerald was told an indictment of Rove would go no where since Bush plans to place Libby’s name on the next Christmas pardon list. Libby was indicted for lying to a Grand Jury. With a pardon of Libby, Fitzgerald would have been hard pressed to bring a case against Rove or Addington’s alter ego, Cheney. Chicago’s crime fighting Eliot Ness met his match in native Washingtonian J. Edgar Hoover. In Washington’s Addington, Chicago’s Fitzgerald has witnessed history repeating itself.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

For all of you die hard Patrick Fitzgerald fans please join the Patrick Fitzgerald Club at
http://groups.msn.com/PatrickJFitzgeraldFanClub

News reports last week said that there are 40 US Attorneys who have gone beyond their expired term. Fitz is no exception, and would probably not be reappointed just as a matter of course. He remains in the job until there is a vacancy — he either leaves, or he gets fired.

In the last few weeks, his assistant US Attorney, Shapiro, has been handling the press conferences instead of Fitz on corruption and other crimes in Chicago. Maybe Fitz is attending to other matters.

I believe Fitz is an honest man, but he’s there to enforce law, not fix the political problems of the US. If you are unhappy with the way government runs, then you need to do something. Run for office, call your local officials, get on government committees, write your newspaper. It’s not easy. I know first-hand that those in power at any level will try to beat you down. Been there, done that. I won a few battles, but the price is high. Fitz has undoubtedly received a lot of battle scars … unless you’ve been personally involved in fighting for people to have a say in how government runs, criticism of Fitz rings a bit hollow.

There’s surely no doubt that Fitz will be history as soon as Bush can make him so. Why should they treat him any differently than they’ve treated everything else they get their hands on? Bushco has no respect for (or interest in) domestic or international law, human rights, other countries, environmental crises, separation of church and state, fundamental fairness, marginalized minorities, et al. Fiercely protected by an immoral Congress and mainstream media, they’ve been absolutely brazen in trying to dismantle everything that’s decent in this society. I’ll shed a tear when Fitz goes, but go he will.

I realize this is a serious, thoughtful site full of serious, thoughtful readers and posters. Might I note, though, that it is just a pleasure to see a photograph of Patrick Fitzgerald instead of the ubiquitous (and not worthy to carry PJF’s briefcase on his way to fight for truth and justice,) Joe Lieberman?

-S

Gawd, Fitz is a sexy mofo.

Sorry, I’ve got nothing more profound than that. :-)

Jim 105:

Yep, same nutcase Byrne. Just goes to show that even a blind pig can sometimes root up an acorn from time to time.

Henry @ 140
I wholeheartedly agree.
Yum

So Fitz is going to prosecute Libby, with the trial coming after the 2006 elections, he’s not going to prosecute Rove, Cheney, or Novak or anybody else for that matter. He’s going after corruption in Chicago (shooting fish in a barrel).

Where is the expression of disappointment? Where is the questioning about how (it appears) that Mr. Fitzgerald has either been out-foxed, or has somehow dropped a very big ball.

To me, big deal he’s going after corruption in Chicago. He has muuch bigger fish to fry in Washington, DC and his performance is one big fat let down.

Am I the only one?