FITZ!

(For old times sake)

FITZ!

So…any confirmation other than Drudge? Most of the time, iirc, it’s not considered the most reliable source of info…

FunnyWheelieDiva

(Read the web site name again, more closely)

WOOHOO!! Go Fitz!

Good news.

REZKO!

I suppose I’m one of the few here at the lake that was not happy with Fitz in the final hour

I think he had an easily winnable case and the only reason he didn’t prosecute was the fact that those guilty would claim they were above the law and call fo an exemption through their supposed executive privilege

as far as I’m concerned that kind of case needs to be prosecuted and those who want to claim their special privilege need to go on the record and do it, thus documenting for all to see those crimes and their refusal to defend themselves against them

so while I respect his ability at trial I do not agree with his decision allowing the crimes he knew as a fact occurred to go unprojected

there, I said it

Fitz!

http://www.muckety.com/Patrick…..30.muckety

I’m with ya.

I do believe him to be fundamentally honest – just too damned cautious and very slow.

I’ll give you the slow part. His tasks tend to expand to fit whatever amount of time is available to do them, and then expand a bit more. Not that I am one to talk, being guilty of the same myself.

Perris, I’m not trying to pick a fight, but have you ever tried a case where you bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

“easily winnable” case against Cheney? Look there was a hugely ominous circumstantial case against Cheney, no doubt about it. Pat called it the “cloud” over the VP’s office.

But an “easily winnable” case where you are sure you can get in the quantum and quality of evidence you need while complying with the Federal Rules of Evidence?

I’m not sure about that that, nor can you be w/o access to those Grand Jury materials.

I can understand why you have a vibe or gut feeling, but that is not the same as admissible evidence

Ah, my bad.
Although the link is just drudge.com…guess I’m too used to TBogg’s “interpretations” of wingnut names and places…
FWDiva

There are two links there and it’s drudge reTort, not drudge report. I made the same mistake at first, too

I am not a lawyer Cynthia and I certainly respect those lawyers who believe this was not a winnable case, their understanding far surpasses mine for sure

however I do know lawyers that do believe this was a winnable case as well as those who think it might have been difficult

neither of these two camp ls believe however that there wasn’t a case however

IMO, the case was not winnable since Cheney would claim his special privilege

but that is the very point, that privilege must be claimed rather then assumed, the case must be brought and the special privilege must be documented and claimed, thus putting to record the fact of crime and the claim of privilege preventing said prosecution

I am not happy with Fitz, though I have tons of respect for those people who are plenty happy with him

I also have no problem with him in any public office what so ever, I think he is a remarkably talented professional with more integrity then anyone I know has a right to claim and I would have nominated him for the highest office in his field

mixed bag there isn’t it

As a Chicagoan, I have to wonder if this is a ‘kick upstairs’.

grumble grumble grumble

I think your navy analogy is off. But what do I know.

Of course USAs have some sort of discretion about what cases they will pursue. But it would be odd to think that the agenda is not set on the Federal level to what they will focus on. There seems to have been all sorts of white collar crime over the past decade and very few were investigated or brought to trial. And there were many claims of election fraud and not too many cases brought.

The navy admiral takes his sailing directions from the pentagon. In a battle he uses his discretion, but decisions about nukes and so forth and invasions are not made by the fleet commander.

I’m not a Chicagoan, but I had the same reaction.

IMO, the case was not winnable since Cheney would claim his special privilege

but that is the very point, that privilege must be claimed rather then assumed, the case must be brought and the special privilege must be documented and claimed, thus putting to record the fact of crime and the claim of privilege preventing said prosecution

If Pat brought a case and lost, 1) there could not be a second case b/c of double jeopardy
2) it would have set a VERY bad precedent.

Better to make no law, than bad law.

Having said that, I was as frustrated as anoyone when Scooter was the only person indicted. But w/o reviewing all the GJ materials I do not feel able to substitute my judgement for that of a person who actually had access to all the facts.

It’s not a kick upstairs in the sense that it will take him out of NDIL. He will still be YOUR US Attorney.

It is an extra job on top of what he is already doing. He has been a member of this advisory committee for a long time, he is just in a position now to set its direction and tone. He could get a lot done in terms of advancing his point of view, if he chooses to.

The navy admiral takes his sailing directions from the pentagon. In a battle he uses his discretion, but decisions about nukes and so forth and invasions are not made by the fleet commander

The anology was to ships CAPTAINS. The pentagon or admiral tells the fleet where to sail to and when to get there by. The ship’s captian charts the course to achieve those goals.

And it is Pat’s analogy–I just like it

well there wouldn’t really be a double jeopardy issue since fitz has experience to understand not putting all eggs in one crate is the best strategy

Look, the reason I think this might be significant, aside from the FDL hearts Fitz angle, is that during the US Attorneys massacre there were all sorts of allegations that USA’s were being fired for not hewing closely enough to what Karl Rove et al wanted.

There were allegations of Pete Domenici trying to micro manage the timing of an investigation and indictment.

There were allegations by the WH that Margaret Chiara was not bringing enough gun cases, though her district had taken care of that sector via other means.

Pat’s view of the independence of USA’s is critical to allowing them to speak truth to power and do their jobs in a non partisan manner.

Yes, the WH and DOJ get to set the priorities (the destination) but they don’t get to tell the captain how to chart the course to achieve those goals.

I don’t care whose analogy it’s dumb. The captain doesn’t even plot the course, the navigator does.

True but ANY type of screw-up on a case like this, with so many political implications and hooks would have been considered a colossal failure and pretty much stopped any hope of going further.

I remember H2Ogate. A lot of small convictions inexorably led to the big guys.

And if there are one or two screw-ups along the way, it can be overcome, unless it is the lead case, right out the door.

The fact that BushCo managed to preclude anything further is not Pat Fitz’s fault

How does the “kick upstairs” argument even make sense, considering Fitz could direct a Chicago-based investigation in his new role. A kick-upstairs move would put him a position where he was little to no influence, not more.

How does the “kick upstairs” argument even make sense, considering Fitz could direct a Chicago-based investigation in his new role. A kick-upstairs move would put him a position where he was little to no influence, not more.

The significance of this, for me, is that it give Pat standing to take on broader issues of how USA’s should stand in relation to DOJ. Under the Bush Admin, the independence of the US Attorney system was seriously threatened, maybe even actually eroded.

That system needs to be protected, and repaired if need be. Pat’s a good choice for that.

Cynthia Kouril, Making Fitz advocate for the USA’s within the DOJ is a great move in my opinion. Do you know him well. Did you work together in the SDNY, same office, same cases? Share what you can.

Pat and I worked on different cases, during the same period, when I was a Special Assitant. I consider him a friend. Which I realize gives me conflict of interest when it comes to things involving him, which is why I try to be upfront about it.

Now, who the h-e double hockey sticks is in charge of seeing that AGs that have abused their position or been involved in corruption etc. will be let go?

The one down in Alabama (Canary?) comes to mind as do several other of the Bush era who seem determined not to go. Isn’t there one right in Illinois or was the AG office that tried Cyril Wecht elsewhere?

Will Fitzgerald have any say in this or will it still be up to Holder who seems to go along to get along?

Can he start a prosecution of Holder for being a useless piece of crap?

The AG’s Advisory Council, as I understand it, comes up with policy proposals which the Ag is not obligated to accept. they are ideas. However, they are ideas from people with power and prestige of their own, so the Ag is likely to take those ideas very seriously.

Also, every now ant then an idea comes along that is so powerful that it takes on a alife of its own, and becomes more powerful than any single AG.

For example the speech Robert Jackson gave on the role of the federal prosecutor

He’s a great guy, as sharp as a tack, and principled to a “t”. I know him from before law school.

duh (bashful smile) are you loosehead? if so, thx, thx, thx, for coming here again!

If Fitz ever shows up at a FDL meetup, he will have as many free Beers as he can manage …
we lurves PatFitz !

Is it too late to see Fitzgerald snap the cuffs on KKKarl Rove?

You mean the guy that let Rove walk after giving him five chances to get his story straight? I’ll never understand the love for this Republican. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME UNDER THE SKIN.

I praying he has PUC…Penis Under Control.