Wrong. Again.

Victoria Toensing has another over the top excoriation of Pat Fitzgerald in the Wall Street Journal. This woman’s crass attempts at raising her own media profile through the cheap device of the manufactured cat fight really crosses over into the land of pathetic. By engaging in such baseless criticism, she deludes herself that she has cast herself onto an equal plane with him, somehow oblivious to the sniggers and guffaws this engenders among the press covering this beat. (I get the funniest phone calls from reporters when she does stuff like this–all of the same tone "who DOES she think she is?")

You may recall that she blasted Fitzgerald for indicting Scooter Libby — and actually expects a rational person to believe that the DOJ guidelines do not permit USA’s to use metaphors to explain their indictments.

What’s more, Mr. Fitzgerald is a repeat offender. In his news conference in October 2005 announcing the indictment of Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice, he compared himself to an umpire who "gets sand thrown in his eyes." The umpire is "trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked" his view.

Here’s what the regulations actually say:

[C]areful weight must be given in each case to the constitutional requirements of a free press and public trials as well as the right of the people in a constitutional democracy to have access to information about the conduct of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and courts, consistent with the individual rights of the accused. Further, recognition should be given to the needs of public safety, the apprehension of fugitives, and the rights of the public to be informed on matters that can affect enactment or enforcement of public laws or the development or change of public policy.

These principles must be evaluated in each case and must involve a fair degree of discretion and the exercise of sound judgment, as every possibility cannot be predicted and covered by written policy statement.

-snip-

1-7.520 Release of Information in Criminal and Civil Matters—Disclosable Information
Department personnel, subject to specific limitations imposed by law or court rule or order and consistent with the provisions of these guidelines, may make public the following information in any criminal case in which charges have been brought:

The defendant’s name, age, residence, employment, marital status, and similar background information;

The substance of the charge, limited to that contained in the complaint, indictment, information, or other public documents;

The identity of the investigating and/or arresting agency and the length and scope of an investigation;

The circumstances immediately surrounding an arrest, including the time and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, possession and use of weapons, and a description of physical items seized at the time of arrest. Any such disclosures shall not include subjective observations; and

In the interest of furthering law enforcement goals, the public policy significance of a case may be discussed by the appropriate United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General.

[emphais mine]

The whole purpose of holding a press conference, is to explain the charges in laymen’s terms — not everyone has the time or inclination to sift through the legalese — and to explain the public policy implications.

In the case of the "sand in the umpire’s eyes" comment, the metaphor explained what the charge of obstruction meant.

In the case of the comments surrounding the Blagojevich arrest and criminal complaint, the comments explained the public policy implications.

Shorter LHP: PatFitz, as per usual, is in compliance with the rules surrounding press conferences. Vicky Toensing, as per usual, is misrepresenting what those rules are.

Considering her really abysmal track record with respect to PatFitz, why does the WSJ even give her a platform? How many times does she have to make a total fool of herself be proven wrong, before WSJ will stop wasting valuable ink on her ravings?