Here is a question I’d like saved for the general election debates in the fall:
[Posted by WLS]
Moderator: “Mr. Obama, will you now pledge that if you are elected President in November, you will keep on Patrick Fitzgerald as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, given that his office in currently in the middle of several long-running investigations into matters of public corruption in the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, investigations that have implicated your friends, political allies, and campaign contributors? These investigations have resulted in numerous convictions of both Republicans and Democrats over several years.
If not, don’t you think that replacing Mr. Fitzgerald, who has proven his political independence in the “CIA Leak” investigation that led to a conviction of a top WH official, would constitute inappropriate interference by you in a politically sensitive criminal investigation?”
Discuss amongst yourselves.
thank you for asking! if i’m elected president, i would never permit cronyism or political considerations to influence personnel matters in the justice department. players will be assigned to the positions at which they can do the most to serve our country. i agree that mr. fitzgerald is doing a fine job in his current post, but of course i cannot account for future events or necessities that may arise from them.
barack obama (f31947) — 2/26/2008 @ 2:44 pmObama replies: “Er, um, ah, (cough), (gasp) um.”
John425 (eae6ea) — 2/26/2008 @ 2:47 pmTo the victor goes the spoils. If O’Bama wins, he gets to replace lots of people. That’s why elections matter.
Americano (8a09aa) — 2/26/2008 @ 3:21 pmObama’s staff replies: “What a racist, hate filled questioned. This the type of politics we are trying to put behind us.”
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 2/26/2008 @ 3:36 pm“Dude, read my lips, like I said, It’s about change and I’ll start with Mr. Fitz.”
PLC14 (f74534) — 2/26/2008 @ 3:43 pmAre you kidding? Why do you think the Daleys put me up? I’ll eviscerate that office like it was a chicken and I’m Tyson Foods. And do you think I want anyone checking where all those “$200.00 contributions” I got came from?
nk (669aab) — 2/26/2008 @ 3:53 pmWLS: WordPress allows you to write articles and post-date them to appear months, even years later. Perhaps you ought to have this one copied and ready for an October 1st appearance.
Dana (d671ab) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:09 pmThanks for the tip Dana, I will do that.
I checked out your site for the first time. Very nice, I think I’ll check in regularly there.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:18 pmIf not, don’t you think that replacing Mr. Fitzgerald, who has proven his political independence in the “CIA Leak” investigation that led to a conviction of a top WH official, would constitute inappropriate interference by you in a politically sensitive criminal investigation?”
Mr Fitzgerald continued his search for the “alleged perp” for 2 years after he knew who the perp was (Richard Armitrige). I consider Fitz a political operative and certainly not independent.
rab (7a9e13) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:28 pmWLS – Complete fantasy world. I wish that there was a journalist out there that might ask a tough question like that, but even the folks at Fox wouldn’t ask that. That is, were they to ever have a chance, since the Dems are too scared to debate on Fox so that their own staffers and plants and buddies in the MSM can toss softball questions to them. But, I digress.
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:34 pmWait.
Isn’t Congress investigation the current administration for replace US attorneys?
Don’t the Dems consider that illegal or something?
N. O'Brain (9056e2) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:51 pmN.O’B
You can only dismiss US attorneys if you are a Dem.
rab (7a9e13) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:54 pmClinton dismissed ~ 72 out of 73 including the one who was investigating Clinton in IL.
The obvious answer would be “It is highly inappropriate for me to answer a question regarding a specific personnel matter. In general, I would seek to have US attorneys who are….” and then bloviate on that topic.
Of course, this doesn’t actually answer the question, but this would be a presidential debate, so one shouldn’t expect real answers anyway.
kishnevi (db1823) — 2/26/2008 @ 4:59 pmI suspect US Attorney Fitzgerald would be one of the first to go. After all, he demonstrated his partisanship by refusing to indict Karl Rove.
DRJ (d8934e) — 2/26/2008 @ 5:42 pmTo compare the number of United States Attorneys replaced by Presidents Clinton and Bush when they took office, one can use the nominations search tool, searching for the string “United States Attorney” (exact match only), and limiting the search to cases where the legislative action was “Confirmed by Senate.” A simplified version of that search is provided below, followed by the raw number of US Attorneys confirmed in the last eight Congresses:
Congress:
110th (2007-2008)
109th (2005-2006)
108th (2003-2004)
107th (2001-2002)
106th (1999-2000)
105th (1997-1998)
104th (1995-1996)
103th (1993-1994)
102th (1991-1992)
101th (1989-1990)
100th (1987-1988)
US Attorneys Confirmed by the Senate Under President Clinton
103rd Congress: 87
104th Congress: 4
105th Congress: 18
106th Congress: 14
US Attorneys Confirmed by the Senate Under President Bush
cboldt (3d73dd) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:07 pm107th Congress: 84
108th Congress: 14
109th Congress: 26
110th Congress: 1
Certainly Obama would can any attorney investigating his shady past. But he would do it in the nicest way possible…and later tell the press how “saddened” he was that Fitzgerald didn’t thank him.
pst314 (49bdf5) — 2/26/2008 @ 6:49 pmI may not be smart, but I do have A’Brain. I never accused the Dems of being intellectually consistent. All I’m saying is, when O’Bama wins, of course there’s gonna be CHANGE.
Americano (8a09aa) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:09 pmAnd the media will be in high dudgeon about these changes … ? The Senate will demand hearings?
JD (851cdc) — 2/26/2008 @ 7:17 pmI doubt the media will be in high dudgeon on any change, except that possibly they are way past due (from their perspective).
Americano (8a09aa) — 2/26/2008 @ 9:04 pmFunny thing, some comments on liberal blogs are promoting Fitzgerald for Attorney General as someone with the credibility to prosecute Bush administration officials, e.g. Karl Rove for his involvement in the incredibly sketchy Seligmann (D-AL) prosecution.
It is SOP for an incoming President to replace all the USAs. If Obama replaces Fitzgerald, the question becomes whether his replacement continues to investigate these cases. If a new replacement closes down cases with obvious merit, that would be the inverse of what the Bush administration pulled in 2006 and I would lose respect for Obama and his team if that were to happen (I have not looked at the Chicago cases specifically, but am inclined to trust Fitzgerald).
While it might have been technically legal to do so, replacing competent USAs for insufficient zeal in partisan prosecutions undermined justice. Locking up your political opponents on phony charges is 3rd world nonsense; none dare call it treason, but do you have a better word for it? This is a point that we should all be able to agree on. Comparing the Clinton administration and the Bush administration in this regard is sloppy moral equivalency that I am used to hearing from dogmatic liberals. Don’t sink to their level just to defend your team. The country is more important than party.
ScottS (c58be3) — 2/27/2008 @ 11:00 am“Locking up your political opponents on phony charges” is a slur on the judicial system and the professionals in it.
Seligman wasn’t thrown in a gulag. He was investigated by the FBI, which then referred the matter with a lenghty prosecutive memorandum to the US Attorney’s Office. The evidence was put before a grand jury and an indictment was returned. The matter was heard before a federal district judge who had the authority to toss out any charges that were deemed to not be factually supported or legally sound. A jury was seated and heard the evidence, as well as the defense to the charges. A unanimous verdict was rendered by 12 citizens. A three judge appellate panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering questions of whether prejudicial trial errors occured, and wethere the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
The US Judicial system has multiple layers of review built into it, both pre and post-trial, such that in order to “lock up political opponents on phony charges” would literally require dozens of people to forsake the oath they have taken to support and defendant the Constitution of the United States.
It doesn’t happen.
WLS (68fd1f) — 2/27/2008 @ 11:13 amScott-
It is SOP for an incoming President to replace all the USAs.
I don’t think this is true. Certainly President Bush choose (to his detriment) not to fire any USA’s in the first year.
Subsequently he fired 8 USA’s.
The DEM hypocrites took him to the woodshed.
The Dems make me hurl (puke).
rab (7a9e13) — 2/27/2008 @ 2:54 pm